TABLE OF CONTENTS
Wednesday, September 28, 1994
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 6251
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6253
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 6253
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6254
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6255
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6255
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6255
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6255
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6255
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6255
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6256
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6256
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6256
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6257
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6257
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6257
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6258
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6258
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6259
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6260
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6260
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 6260
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 6260
Bill C-275. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 6262
Bill C-276. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 6263
Mr. PericPROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Motion for concurrence in 34th report 6263
Motion moved and agreed to. 6263
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6263
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6264
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6264
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6264
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6265
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6265
Bill C-22. Motion of non-concurrence 6266
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6283
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.13 p.m.) 6290
The House resumed at 6.27 p.m. 6290
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6291
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 6292
6251
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, September 28, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur): Mr.
Speaker, 12 university students from my riding of
Restigouche-Chaleur had a chance to live a wonderful
experience this summer in the young entrepreneurs program.
Each of these students created a business plan and next year
during the second phase of this project they will create their own
small business.
[Translation]
Under a Canada-New Brunswick agreement on the
development of entrepreneurship, 16 young people had the
opportunity to put into practice some of the skills needed to set
up a business. I congratulate these young people on their desire
to contribute to the economic future of our country.
[English]
I would also like to congratulate the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, the Department of Human Resources
Development and the New Brunswick Department of Advanced
Education and Labour for participating in this important
program. Education and training are the key factors in the
development of young people in Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, the Ontario
Minister of Finance has suggested that provincial sales taxes be
transferred to the federal government, and the provinces be
given a larger share of income tax in return. It is ridiculous to
think that Quebec would agree to give up the area of taxation and
its $5.7 billion in provincial sales taxes.
It is also ridiculous to think that all the provinces share the
same economic reality. Blanket solutions will no longer work.
Furthermore, some provinces, such as Alberta and
Newfoundland, have already pointed out that Ontario's proposal
did not reflect their situation. The Bloc Quebecois is proposing a
much more flexible solution, which would make it possible to
eliminate considerable overlap. They suggest transferring the
GST to those provinces who request it, with an equivalent
reduction in provincial transfer payments.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this House today to address a very serious
issue, the current threat to freedom of speech in this Parliament.
We are witnessing the decline of dialogue when a member in
this House can be accused of hate mongering for expressing
what she feels are the views of the majority of Canadians and
which are rooted in her personal convictions.
No member of this House should be afraid of expressing their
point of view because of a threat of being labelled as a bigot.
Nothing shuts down dialogue and the freedom of debate more
quickly than labelling.
It is extremely important to all Canadians that in the shaping
of public policy alternate points of view must never be
suppressed but must be allowed free expression.
Members of this House must never fear to speak out in
defence of the views of their constituents, the convictions of
their conscience or on behalf of the concerns of Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, a few
weeks ago, a young high school student in Montreal was sent
home because she was wearing a hijab, the traditional Islamic
veil, and a long tunic not considered acceptable according to the
school's dress code.
6252
[English]
Our schools play an important role in teaching our youth
tolerance and acceptance of individuals regardless of race or
culture.
[Translation]
All Canadians, regardless of their ethnic origin, religion or
political affiliation have the right to have access to public
institutions, including schools. The Parti Quebecois
government must take the necessary action to ensure a climate
of tolerance and harmony for all citizens of Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank
217 constituents of the riding of Oxford for taking the time to
sign a petition relating to the conditions in Davis Inlet.
These petitioners are asking that the federal government
honour the commitment it has made to improve housing,
sanitation, and education in order to enable a community
healing process to occur and thus realize the vision of the Innu
with respect to relocation to Sango Pond.
I am pleased with the work the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development is doing to improve the living conditions
for all those who live in the Davis Inlet community.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to recognize the accomplishments of Selwyn Tam of
Vancouver East.
At the recent Commonwealth Games in Victoria, B.C.,
Selwyn led the Canadian wrestling team to one of its finest
showings ever with an outstanding gold medal performance in
the 52 kilogram weight category.
Selwyn, the defending national senior champion, had a
stunning 10 to 0 score in the final bout.
Selwyn is to be commended for his hard work, talent and
dedication. Selwyn's contribution to the sport of wrestling has
been generous and exemplary. He has given much to further the
ideals and principles that sport embodies.
Selwyn is a truly remarkable athlete. We are all very proud of
the entire Canadian team and of Selwyn Tam particularly.
Congratulations again.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister should not worry so much about how foreign investors
perceive the Quebec sovereignty issue. He told us repeatedly
that the sovereignists were responsible for the increase of
interests rates in Canada.
(1405)
Yesterday however, members of the Chamber of Commerce of
Metropolitan Montreal were told otherwise by two renowned
American analysts. Mr. Ravi Bulchandani, vice-president of the
New York brokerage firm Morgan Stanley, and Mr. George
Russell, editor of Time International, said that the Canadian
debt was a greater concern to American investors than the
sovereignty of Quebec.
I suggest to you that the Prime Minister should stop blaming
the sovereignists for the economic problems of Canada on the
erroneous basis of foreign investors' concern and get down to
the task of resolving the debt problem.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, last week the
Minister of Justice expressed his total disregard for the
principles of democracy that govern this country; the we know
best attitude still prevails. You can change the name from Tory
to Liberal but the game seems to remain the same.
The GST, FTA and NAFTA, to name a few, were shoved down
the throats of Canadians by virtue of the fact that the we know
best attitude was a hallmark of the Tory government. Now the
Minister of Justice has effectively put his government in the
same category by publicly proclaiming that any proposed gun
legislation will not be determined by a head count. The justice
minister does not take a head count. He is not influenced by
numbers nor the message behind them.
Democracy does not prevail because the philosophy of the
Liberal cabinet is that it and not Canadians knows best.
What can Canadians do about this atrocity? Their only
recourse is to wait until the next election and remove this
government from power as decisively as they removed the
Tories from office in the last election.
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants): Mr.
Speaker, on Sunday, October 2, I will have the honour of taking
part in
6253
a walk for schizophrenia. This event which coincides with
National Mental Illness Awareness Week has been organized by
dedicated volunteers in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants.
The goal of this walk is to generate greater public awareness
for schizophrenia, an illness that affects one in 100 people. I had
the pleasure of working in the psychiatric mental health field for
27 years and am pleased to have the opportunity to extend my
support to this worthwhile cause.
I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating
those who have made this event a reality. I urge all of my
colleagues to work in their ridings to bring greater awareness to
schizophrenia and to promote mental health issues.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to bring to the attention of my colleagues and to all
Canadians the recent StatsCan statistics on spousal assaults.
Domestic violence is a harsh reality which we can no longer
choose to ignore. The report published by Statistics Canada
found that one in three abused wives said they feared for their
lives at some point in their relationship and that one in five
abused women said that the assaults occurred while they were
pregnant.
These figures are horrifying. A man who uses his size and
strength to assault or otherwise abuse a woman is not only a
coward but a criminal. I challenge all Canadians to speak out at
every opportunity, declaring that there is no excuse for abuse.
It is time all Canadians worked together to eliminate spousal
abuse once and for all.
* * *
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West): Mr. Speaker, this week
the U.S. naval base at Argentia, Newfoundland closed its doors.
The negative impact of this closure on the historic town of
Placentia will be far reaching. In addition to the number of
people who will lose their jobs, we will have to deal with the
severe economic impact on the business community as well as
social and, last but by no means least, the environmental
concerns.
I want to express my gratitude to this government and
particularly to the minister of fisheries for their positive
response to my efforts on behalf of the people of Placentia area.
I want also to assure the residents of Placentia that I will
continue my efforts on their behalf in making sure that there is a
very rigorous campaign to address the redevelopment and reuse
of the base facilities.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, my hon. colleague from Richelieu introduced a
motion to make party fundraising healthier in Canada. Our
motion was somewhat successful in that it was supported by
members from all parties. I wish to thank them for their support.
(1410)
Nevertheless, I was shocked and even outraged to see
members of the Liberal Party of Canada representing Quebec
oppose this motion. They are familiar with the provincial public
financing legislation in operation in Quebec since 1977 and
should appreciate this basic democratic tool. By voting against
the motion we tabled in this House, they show how little they
care about the democratization of politics in Canada, which
certainly does not do them credit.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to draw attention to two worthy initiatives that will
help guarantee Canada a place in the new economy.
Recently the Royal Bank of Canada committed $25 million to
a venture capital fund. Along with its partners an alliance was
formed that will provide capital to bring neuroscience
breakthroughs to the market. This commitment marks the first
time a pool of venture capital has been raised to fund the
neurosciences.
In addition, the Bank of Commerce appointed a
vice-president of learning organizations and leadership
development. The function of this position is to provide a means
of measuring intellectual capital.
We have reached the time when banks and other institutions
will not measure worth exclusively in terms of tangible assets.
Rather, the assets of the future will also be based on intellectual
innovation and invention.
As of 7.32 this morning the national debt had reached
$532,190,587,211.96.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr.
Speaker, when it comes to child poverty in Canada the latest
statistics produced by the Canadian Council on Social
Development are startling.
The child mortality rate is twice as high among poor families
as among richer families. The high school drop-out rate for
6254
children from poor families is 2.5 times that for children from
non-poor families, the list goes on and on. The statistics are
getting worse, not better.
Tomorrow this House will discuss my motion M-261 which
states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of reaffirming its commitment to seek to achieve the goal of
eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.
This motion was passed unanimously in 1989.
It is my hope that this Parliament and this government will
once again reaffirm its commitment to the national fight against
child poverty. It is important that Canadians know there is a
commitment to this fight as well as policies which will seriously
address it.
* * *
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River): Mr.
Speaker, last week, thousands of farmers, hunters and
sportsmen, including many Quebecers, came to Parliament Hill
to express their concern about new firearms legislation which
would affect legitimate gun owners.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois were notably absent.
Nevertheless, I know that at least ten members privately oppose
such controls, but they do not have the nerve to stand up and
defend their constituents' rights and privileges. They prefer to
toe the party line and follow their leader blindly. Who will
defend the interests of Quebec's rural regions in the House of
Commons?
I call on all farmers, hunters and sportsmen in Quebec to put
pressure on Bloc members.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt): Mr.
Speaker, last night CBC ``Prime Time'' exposed secret
documents from Reform Party brass which seek to impose the
party's right wing agenda on its membership at Reform's
national convention in Ottawa next month.
While no surprise to me, no doubt the membership of the
so-called party of reform will be alarmed by evidence of such
old style politics. Reform campaigned on a promise to speak for
the grassroots. Less than a year later the Reform Party brass has
reneged on that promise, choosing instead to impose on the
grassroots of the party resolutions and policy.
The Reform Party inner circle will impose its secret right
wing agenda on its membership, like abolishing the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
As I recall, or is that recall-oops, a bad choice of
words-such old style politics was to be strictly verboten.
(1415 )
The party of teledemocracy stands exposed. To abolish free
speech press one. To abolish free assembly press two. To recall
your Reform MP press three.
The Speaker: Welcome to wonderful Wednesday.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
_____________________________________________
6254
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister said in the House last week that, and
I quote: ``no trace of any commitment was found'' to reimburse
Quebec for the expenses incurred in the referendum on the
Charlottetown Accord. The truth is that there are not just traces
but documents, including a letter dated December 15, 1993,
from Mr. Bourassa, the Premier of Quebec at the time, to the
then Prime Minister of Canada. This letter followed three other
letters on the same subject to the federal Minister of Finance.
Why did the Prime Minister hide these letters from the House
and the public?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
did not hide anything from the House. I said that in the
government's files I found no commitment by Mr. Mulroney's
Conservative government indicating that it would compensate
the Government of Quebec. I was aware that requests had been
made, and I did not make a secret of that. Some were made
publicly. I knew that Mr. Bourassa had talked about this in the
National Assembly. But what I did not find is a commitment
from the federal government. I got in touch with Mr. Mulroney
to ask him whether he had made a commitment. I wrote him a
letter about this, and I am waiting for his reply.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I may refer everyone to Hansard for September 22,
where the Prime Minister says that no trace of any commitment
was found. He knows perfectly well that to prove the existence
of a commitment, one needs witnesses, and when the witness is
one the parties, the case is clear. The letter dated December 15,
1993, which Mr. Bourassa sent to the Prime Minister, contains
clear and irrefutable evidence of an agreement between Mr.
Bourassa and Mr. Mulroney.
For the benefit of the Prime Minister, I will read an extract
from this letter, in which Mr. Bourassa says: ``The Chief
Electoral Officer of Quebec has established that the direct cost
of the referendum for the Government of Quebec as $47.2
6255
million. That is the basis of our claim for federal compensation,
which was transmitted to the federal Minister of Finance by Mr.
Gérald-D. Lévesque on May 7, 1993.'' The letter goes on to
say: ``Unfortunately, no payment could be made before Mr.
Mulroney left.'' Now for the crucial passage: ``although Mr.
Mulroney indicated last March that Quebec would be fairly
compensated in this respect''. How can the Prime Minister deny
the existence of an agreement, considering Mr. Bourassa's own
very clear testimony which he put down in writing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Gérald-D. Lévesque wrote to the
government about this. I am aware of that. The Minister of
Finance also discussed the matter with the Minister of Finance
of Canada. This is about a request, a claim made by Quebec. It is
not a commitment. A commitment exists when the federal
government agrees to pay. However, there is no indication in any
document that the government agreed to do so. If conversations
took place between Mssrs. Mulroney and Bourassa, I would be
delighted to know what they were about. I called Mr. Mulroney,
who did not give me an answer, but perhaps the Leader of the
Opposition, who knows Mr. Mulroney very well, could call him
and ask him whether he gave his consent, yes or no.
(1420)
The Speaker: I would ask hon. members to make their
questions and answers as brief as possible.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, Robert Bourassa, in the course of his duties as premier
and bound by his oath of office, testifies in this letter to the
existence of an agreement and a commitment made by his
counterpart, the federal Prime Minister. That is the truth.
On September 22 in this House, the Prime Minister
challenged the Bloc Quebecois to give him, and I quote: ``proof
that my predecessor and the previous government made a
commitment, and we will gladly pay''. Here is the proof. Now,
pay.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
would not advise the Leader of the Opposition to go back to
practising law, if he makes statements like that.
He says that Mr. Bourassa said that Mr. Mulroney-whom
you know very well, who took you at your word and then you
went back on it-told him such and such a thing. I do not doubt
that Mr. Bourassa wrote the letter, since I read it. However, I
asked the Privy Council to go through all the documentation.
Was there anything in writing? Did a discussion take place in
cabinet or elsewhere to confirm this letter? I was told that
nothing could be found.
I called Mr. Mulroney and I told him: Mr. Mulroney, I am
sending you a letter with a request to clarify the situation. He
said that he would reply very shortly. I said in the House that if
there was a commitment, it would be respected, and if there was
no commitment, you can blame Mr. Mulroney.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, on
December 15, 1993, Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa wrote the
Prime Minister of Canada, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice,
to confirm the existence of a verbal agreement between himself
and the former Prime Minister of Canada. This letter was signed
and dated December 15.
Following the questions Bloc Quebecois members have been
asking in this House for several months on this subject, could
the Prime Minister not have shown good will by checking with
Mr. Mulroney, right after Mr. Bourassa made the request, if he
really wanted to be fair to Quebecers? Should he not have done
so a long time ago instead of waiting for the opposition to force
his hand a few days ago?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the opposition says that there was an agreement. In my opinion,
any agreement requires the consent of both parties. We found no
evidence that the former government gave its consent. We
recently asked Mr. Mulroney. We asked Privy Council officials
and others who worked with these former first ministers, and
they told us that there never was a commitment.
I went one step further: I called Mr. Mulroney himself. I
talked to him on the telephone and he told me that he would
confirm his position in writing. Once we know his position, we
will take action. If he made promises to Mr. Bourassa, I will be
very happy to honour them. If he did not make promises at the
time and personally refused to pay when he was leading the
government, I am not responsible for the actions of another
government that did not want to pay. I was not involved in this
matter.
I would like to say to the opposition that Alberta and British
Columbia also wanted to hold provincial referendums but, under
the circumstances, they preferred, to avoid the costs involved
and to be sure they would get paid, to have the referendum held
under federal legislation.
(1425)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, given the
attitude of the officials surrounding the Prime Minister who
have been playing hide-and-seek for several months in this
matter and the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada questions
the very word of the former Quebec premier, does the Prime
Minister not agree that his attitude, far from being a sign of
co-operation with Quebec, points to a conspiracy against that
province?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, a
prime minister cannot act alone. The opposition would be the
first to blame me if I took on financial commitments without
cabinet and Treasury Board approval. Of course, if I give my
word, they will honour it; on the other hand, legally, without a
cabinet decision and Treasury Board approval, there can be no
government commitment.
6256
If Mr. Mulroney made a personal promise to Mr. Bourassa,
I will go before my Cabinet to ensure that the word of the
former Prime Minister is honoured, even though he did not act
prudently. If he promised something without having it approved
by Treasury Board and the government then in office, I will not
act illegally without the approval of cabinet, Treasury Board
and my party.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, may I
divert the attention of the House to something Canadians really
care about?
Canada's social programs are not sustainable at their current
levels. In fact estimates by the Auditor General and the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions show that within only
15 years Canada's social security system plus interest will
exceed 100 per cent of all government revenues.
Is the minister going to reduce spending on social programs or
raise taxes?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows,
the money that the federal government spends, along with funds
spent by provincial governments, is the most important
investment we can make because we are investing in the people
of Canada.
We are helping young children to have a better life by making
sure they are nurtured. We are helping young people get an
education so they will have the skills for the future job market.
We are providing security for older workers and we are helping
our senior citizens.
As a country we have to stay strongly committed to the
provision of an effective and improved social security system.
This is the reason we will next week be putting forward a series
of options, directions for Canadians to take a look at so they can
become involved in the important debate as to the kind of social
programs we want, how we will pay for it and how we make sure
we improve them. That is the reason we are doing it.
I hope the hon. member will actively participate in that
debate, unlike some of her colleagues who are saying let us not
have a debate at all.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, seniors
and those planning to retire want to know if their government
pensions are safe and secure and who will pay for the programs
that retiring Canadians have been counting on?
Will the minister's action plan deal with the reality that there
will be a 40 per cent increase in the number of senior citizens in
the next 15 years?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the social security review that
we will be launching next week deals primarily with matters of
the workplace, with matters of lifelong learning and income
security.
(1430)
The hon. member should recall we made very explicit in last
February's budget that programs pertaining to the question of
old age security and the Canadian pension plan were not being
touched as part of this review.
The Minister of Finance clearly indicated that we would be
preparing and releasing a discussion paper to show what the
demographic changes would be and what the long term impacts
would be on some of our income security papers. That kind of
analysis is now under way. It is the kind of thing that has to be
shared with all Canadians to make sure we can reason together
on very important issues.
Once again I invite the hon. member to participate in a
constructive way in that debate.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, the
minister should realize that Canadians cannot prepare an
informed response to his action plan unless they understand the
financial consequences.
Will the minister help all Canadians deal with this reality by
providing detailed financial projections next week with all the
elements of his action plan?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I could begin right at this
moment to give Canadians one set of analyses. I heard the hon.
member, in a press conference the Reform Party held, talk about
a cut of $15 billion in social programs. A $15 billion cut would
mean the total elimination of all assistance for children, all
social services for seniors and all assistance for higher
education from the federal level.
In other words, the Reform Party's fiscal program would wipe
out assistance for children, young people and workers. We do
not need that kind of fiscal program.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
In its report released yesterday, the Canadian Institute of
Child Health says that one child out of five lives in poverty in
Canada. The Institute, which conducted a similar public study in
1989, concludes that child poverty and its harmful effects have
increased.
6257
Will the Prime Minister recognize that, beyond all the nice
rhetoric, the only measure taken by his government was to
contribute to the impoverishment of Canadian families by
substantially reducing UI access and benefits, thereby forcing
the unemployed and their families to rely on welfare?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to inform
the House that one of the major results of the changes we made
to the unemployment insurance system in the legislation last
spring was to provide assistance for an additional 27,000 low
income families with children. We substantially increased their
UI benefits.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, we are
talking about children's health. My question is: Does the Prime
Minister realize that his social reform, which is designed to cut
into these programs-and that is the only measure
announced-will in fact impoverish families already living
below poverty level, in very difficult conditions, and also have
harmful effects on children?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I have asked members of the
House to wait until we table the paper before they begin making
judgments on the various propositions.
However I can tell the hon. member very clearly that the issue
of child poverty is a very central concern of the government. It
will be seriously addressed in the discussion paper. We will use
that occasion to engage Canadians from one end of the country
to the other in a major debate on how we can better mobilize
resources to put an end to child poverty by the end of this
century.
(1435)
It is a commitment this party made when it was in opposition.
It is a commitment we make as a government to begin to bring
Canadians forward on a serious debate about how we can deal
with the problem of children and their parents.
I would ask the hon. member to use her best offices as a
member of that party to provide a constructive and positive
contribution to that debate.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I asked for an explanation of questionable practices
within the defence department. Most glaring was a $327,000
contract in connection with the deputy minister's office.
This figure could in fact be much higher. A departmental
answer to an access to information request suggests that
additional costs have been camouflaged by splitting invoices
between several agencies.
Does the Prime Minister agree that this is an unusual practice?
Will he tell us how much money was involved in these
purchases, and if those figures are not now available will he
commit to making them public when he has them?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, the allegation and the question are centred around the
Lagueux report, an audit done in national defence in 1992. I was
briefed on it and I have to report to the House.
On the evidence that I received this morning I have to report
that there is no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker,
there are many discrepancies revealed in the Lagueux report that
indicate poor management practices within the department.
People inside and outside the department are aware of the
allegations and are unhappy with the implications.
In the interest of morale and confidence in the system will the
parliamentary secretary commit the government to
commissioning an outside, unbiased, professional investigation
to settle the matter once and for all?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, if you accept my answer to the first question then
obviously the answer to the second question has to be, I regret,
no.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
In the report on poverty, women's health problems are
mentioned. The Minister of Health announced the establishment
of a centre of excellence on several occasions: during the throne
speech, in January; during the budget speech, in February; in the
House, on March 8; in Montreal, before the Canadian Medical
Association, on August 16; and finally last week, at the
gynecologists' convention.
When will the Minister of Health stop announcing that the
centres of excellence will be established shortly and act?
6258
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as
soon as the plans are finalized, I will be delighted to let
everyone know.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, are we to
understand that the delay in implementation is due to the fact
that the minister is unable to convince her colleagues to allocate
the funds for centres of excellence for women's health?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the
centres of excellence for women's health are well on the road to
being announced. The terms of reference are being worked on. I
will be very happy when they are all completed and the centres
are operational across the country.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, for 50 years the land engineering test establishment,
known as LETE, has provided one-stop shopping for Canadian
army design, development and testing.
In 1993 the chief of defence staff gave LETE a departmental
commendation for the completion of 50 high priority tasks
supporting peacekeepers in Somalia and the former Yugoslavia.
LETE has saved Canadian soldiers. Will the Prime Minister
confirm that in fact there are no real savings in the closure of
LETE and that others will fill LETE's crucial role at the
potential expense of Canadian lives?
(1440 )
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, in response to his question I assure the hon. member
that the Canadian forces have not and will not place their troops
at unnecessary risk with inappropriate or unsafe equipment.
As the member knows, the closure of LETE on September 1
will not result in reduced standards or reduced responsiveness to
the army's needs.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian public is demanding accountability from
the government; it wants the facts.
The remarks of the parliamentary secretary do not represent
the facts. The facts are that DND is sending some of LETE's
sophisticated equipment as a gift to the United States army test
and evaluation command, according to their fax which I have in
my possession dated September 22.
Will the Prime Minister tell us how defence can justify
LETE's closure as a cost cutting saving when we will now have
to pay the Americans to use our own equipment?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, the thrust of the hon. member's question is very good.
He talks about the facts. I will give him the facts.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Mifflin: If he wants the answer he is going to have to
listen. The fact is that the essential activities previously
conducted by LETE are being carried out in house and through
separate contracts. For contracted work, where feasible,
Canadian companies will be considered as a matter of course.
I again assure the House the closure of LETE, if he wants the
facts, is expected to save $11 million annually.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. In spite of constant
questioning on the part of the official opposition about what his
plans really are regarding RRSP taxation, the Minister of
Finance still refuses to rule out that possibility. His attitude
gives more cause for worry to middle-class taxpayers who rely
on RRSPs to prepare a decent retirement for themselves.
I give him yet another chance to put their worried minds to
rest. Why does he refuse to undertake not to tax RRSPs, in order
not to further increase the tax burden of the middle class?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, one can wonder who is
causing worry-I believe this is the third time this week that the
hon. member has asked the same question. The Bloc Quebecois
must have run out of questions to ask.
I was very clear on this issue. If there is to be a pre-budget
consultation process, the Minister of Finance must not rule out
any possibility or idea. We do not want to hinder the process. I
made it very clear that if I answered this question, it would lead
to another and another, eventually rendering the consultation
process useless. So, I do not intend to comment on specific
suggestions because I want to give the people of Canada the
chance to tell us what they want.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, questions
arise because there are no clear answers. Does the Minister of
Finance not recognize that by taxing RRSPs, he would actually
be creating inequity between those workers who have registered
retirement savings plans subsidized in part by their employers
and those who have none, such as self-employed workers,
farmers and fishermen?
6259
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, it is very important to preserve the
integrity of the consultation process.
All of us in the House are involved in a unique experiment. We
are opening up the whole process of budgetary consultation. We
are getting rid of budget secrecy.
That really means the Minister of Finance should not
comment on individual suggestions. If he does so, he will
eventually make the process impossible because the budget will
have been given well before its official date.
I do not intend to make specific comments on specific
suggestions because I want the process to work, and that is what
Canadians want.
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker,
my question is with regard to the Canadian military personnel
that served in the Persian gulf war. It is reported that Canadian
personnel were administered a drug to combat potential nerve
gas attacks. Many are now complaining of severe side effects
referred to as gulf war syndrome.
(1445)
Can the minister please inform the House of the progress
being made to help these deserving Canadians.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome this question because it involves the long
term health and welfare of the Canadian forces personnel.
In direct response to the question, we have had 12 people with
symptoms similar to those voiced by the United States forces
personnel. They have been seen by a Canadian forces doctor and
are currently experiencing no difficulty whatsoever.
As the minister has previously stated in this House, we have
not been able to determine a causal link between the chemical
biological warfare agents used in the gulf and the symptoms
experienced by the Canadian forces members. In fact we find
evidence to the contrary.
I want to reassure the House that there is no scientific
evidence that the drugs that were administered to the Canadian
forces members had harmful effects. On the contrary. In fact, the
body of evidence that exists would show that everything attests
to their safety and their use.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Once again we are seeing the federal government playing
politics with the economic well-being of Canada. The users of
terminals one and two at Pearson airport are languishing in
outdated and overcrowded facilities while the government's
fatally flawed Bill C-22 is passed back and forth like a football
between the Liberal dominated Commons and the Tory-run
other place. This is economic planning at its shameful worst.
Can the minister advise this House what action he is taking to
ensure the economic well-being of Pearson airport while this
political football game continues.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I and I am sure many members of the House and especially
people who understand the importance of Pearson International
Airport to the economy not only to that area of Ontario but to the
entire country are looking forward to this afternoon and
tomorrow because I understand that members in the other place
have already indicated that they are looking very much to the
position of my colleagues in the Reform Party.
I think if they support this bill we will be able to get it through
the Senate and do what we have to do with Pearson which is get
on with the business of running Pearson.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. minister's response did not tell us what he has planned
for Pearson.
Under the minister's national airport plan we will not see the
commencement of construction on a new facility until at least
1998. This is not acceptable. I cannot believe the minister is
prepared to tell Toronto it will have to wait until past the turn of
the century for needed facilities.
What is the minister doing to shorten this unacceptable delay?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I have spoken with the premier of Ontario with respect to this
matter. As the hon. member will know, the new Canadian airport
authority at Pearson will have representation from the
Government of Canada, from the province of Ontario and from
various municipalities in the metropolitan Toronto area.
We have done that now. We will have concluded the
transitional requirements but we are faced, and I want to tell my
hon. colleague this, with a very serious problem. We have
identified the people. We have the structure all set to go but our
friends in
6260
the other place would like to stick Canadian taxpayers with a bill
for $445 million and I want to see this afternoon if the Reform
Party is going to put its votes where its mouth is.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
On March 9, the minister indicated in this House that he
wanted to review old-age security programs. Following the
general outcry caused by this announcement, the Prime Minister
decided that the review would be limited to the Canada Pension
Plan and RRSPs. This review was to be tabled last June but the
government has clearly delayed it.
My question is this: Can the minister tell us why the
government has delayed announcing its intentions by tabling the
review promised for last June?
(1450)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, we are presently speaking with a
number of groups and organizations throughout Canada,
particularly as they represent seniors, to get their point of view.
I want to use the opportunity to correct one very mistaken
statement I know the member made inadvertently and that is that
we said that we would be doing anything about old age pensions.
We never said that. We said we would be preparing a paper to
look at the long range income security issues facing Canada.
That was a commitment made in the budget and that is it,
period.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question. Does the minister still intend
to slash programs for seniors in order to finance other federal
government programs? Will we have to wait until after the
Quebec referendum to know the answer?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, it never was our intention, it will
not be our intention, la réponse est non.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime
Minister's government committed to send troops and RCMP to
Haiti. Yesterday RCMP chief superintendent Mr. Pouliot stated
that retraining the Haitian police force would take from seven to
ten years.
Since the Prime Minister is asking Canadian soldiers and
police to risk their lives in the chaos of Haiti and Canadian
taxpayers to finance it, will he at least tell us his plan, the costs
and how long we can expect to have Canadians in Haiti?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that Canadian
commitments through the United Nations are well known and
well supported by the overwhelming majority of Canadians.
Indeed it is clear that when Canada responds to a request by
the United Nations we follow the longstanding practice to serve
wherever we are asked and particularly to serve in an area close
to our own country in our own hemisphere.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, there is not enough
maple syrup in Canada to cover the waffling of this government.
Since we cannot get an answer on any kind of a plan for
Canadians, we do not know what it is going to cost and we do not
know how long they are going to be there, could we at least find
out the commitments, who they have been made to, what we
have committed and why those commitments cannot be
explained to the Canadian people?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, it is clear that the hon. member has all the numbers he
wants. In fact they have been part of the estimates. There have
been witnesses before a parliamentary committee who gave all
the indications. For the benefit of the hon. member I will send
him a letter giving all the numbers that he has already.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, on several
occasions, the Minister of Fisheries encouraged Gaspé
fishermen in their plan to catch turbot; last March, at the Boston
Seafood Show; in April, with his Quebec counterpart and in
July, the minister himself admitted it in an interview with the
Canadian press. However, on July 20, with only a few hours'
notice, the minister denied the Gaspé fishermen access to the
resource, even though they had just invested more than
$700,000.
Does the minister admit that his about-face alone is
responsible for this summer's turbot saga, which led to the arrest
of the Gaspé fishermen, their being fined and losing investments
of hundreds of thousands of dollars?
6261
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, the member continues to make an assertion that he
knows to be absolutely false; that is the notion that the
Government of Canada ever gave any consent or ever requested
that people expend funds in anticipation of or with a guarantee
of a licence to be subsequently let to fish turbot. The member
knows that, not just because I have dealt with it publicly and in
the House but because the member was privately briefed by me
three times and on four occasions was briefed by my officials.
On each occasion he expressed an understanding of the need for
conservation.
(1455)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, clearly, the
minister did not answer the question. Since the minister cannot
deny having supported the plan, does he promise today to fully
compensate the Gaspé fishermen who spent more than $700,000
and whose only mistake was to take a man at his word?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, as I said yesterday the whole planet recognizes the
need for conservation. The whole planet acted on that need at a
UN conference. All the members of NAFO acted on that need at
a NAFO conference. All the people associated with the fishery
in Canada, current stakeholders, people who are already in the
turbot fishery, have taken anywhere from 60 per cent to 100 per
cent cuts in that stock, yet this member continues to insist that
one group of fishermen only in Atlantic Canada, and there are
hundreds affected in many provinces, ought to be compensated.
The member knows that the proposition he has put is laced
more with a concern out of political advantage than with a
concern for conservation. The member ought to grow up and be
responsible.
The Speaker: My colleagues, we should be very careful not
to attribute motive of any kind, at least motive which is less than
acceptable. I would ask that in the questions and in the answers
that perhaps we carry a greater amount of respect one for the
other.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Justice regarding discrimination based on
sexual orientation.
Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation to
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include freedom from
discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation as promised in
the red book?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, this government remains
committed to exactly such an amendment and we will introduce
a bill to that effect.
I should say in response to the member's question that in
doing so we will not only fulfil a commitment and provide for a
matter of fundamental justice, but we will also bring the federal
statute into conformity with eight provincial human rights acts,
some of which date back to 1977 on that topic. We will have the
federal law conform with what the courts have in any event been
reading into the act for many years.
In the view of this government it is about time that our federal
statute reflect the reality in Canada.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, pneumonic plague
has been a problem in India. Can the health minister tell us what
she is doing to reassure Canadians?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to respond to the hon. member's question and to
inform the House of the steps that have been taken to respond to
this issue.
Last Friday night I and my department issued a travel
advisory to all Canadians pertaining to travel to India indicating
that they should not travel in certain areas or that if they
absolutely have to, they should see their doctor prior to leaving
the country.
I have been meeting with my officials to make sure that we
continue to be very vigilant and monitor what is happening. I
have asked that all flights from India be met at international
airports. There is an emergency response plan in place.
(1500)
That being said, there is a very small risk to Canadians at this
time. I have asked that a yellow card be issued to all
international passengers on flights originating in India, and to
ground personnel at airports in order that they may have the
proper information to deal with this issue.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, we have
the Minister of Health taking action on a disease that is treatable
and not likely to spread in Canada. Canadians expect that.
However, I find it ironic that the minister of immigration has
refused the Reform Party's repeated calls for HIV testing for
immigrants, a disease that is fatal, invisible and costs hundreds
of thousands of dollars to treat.
6262
When will the minister of immigration stop treating HIV
AIDS as a politically protected disease and put the health and
safety of Canadians at the top of his priority list.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of Canadians
is already at the top of the list for all ministers and government
departments. That is our first priority.
Second, the member of Parliament knows that after 18 years
where the medical inadmissibility chapter of our process has not
been touched that I have asked for a full review.
It is blatantly unfair and irresponsible for this member to
simply select one element. The government will proceed with a
full review in a comprehensive and factual way.
* * *
The Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members
the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Edward Roberts, Minister
of Justice and the Hon. John Efford, Minister of Work Services
and Transportation from the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
6262
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the report of the joint
parliamentary delegation's visit to Australia from June 26 to
July 4, 1994.
This visit took us to four communities: Canberra, Longreach,
Brisbane and Sydney. As guests of the Australian Senate and
House of Representatives, we were provided with the
opportunity to meet and discuss matters with numerous
parliamentarians, many of whom were ministers, both at the
federal and state levels. Our discussions covered a wide range of
topics: international affairs, including APEC, GATT, NAFTA,
UN peacekeeping, economic and taxation issues, including the
GST, aboriginal affairs, federal-state relations and
employment, agricultural and educational issues, just to name a
few.
I know I speak for all the members of the delegation when I
say that we felt as if we were still at home in Canada because of
the numerous similarities between our two countries.
Let me conclude by drawing the House's attention to a
recommendation put forward by an Australian counterpart, the
hon. Andrew Peacock. Mr. Peacock felt very strongly that
because Canada and Australia have so much in common and so
many areas in which expertise can be shared and exchanged,
some form of mechanism or association should be created to
ensure that this type of exchange between Australian and
Canadian parliamentarians takes place on a more frequent and
regular basis.
(1505)
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express our gratitude to the
Hon. Michael Beahan, President of the Senate and your
counterpart, the Hon. Stephen Martin, Speaker of the House of
Representatives for being such gracious hosts; Mrs. Carol
Richardson, Australian Parliamentary Officer, who worked so
hard and successfully on our program; and finally to Mr.
Michael Berry, Canadian High Commissioner, and Mr. Gardiner
Wilson, Canadian Deputy High Commissioner, who provided
the delegation with much appreciated advice and support.
The Speaker: Now that is what I call a comprehensive and
fine report.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with its responsibilities under the standing orders I
am pleased to report to the House that the Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs has studied private members'
business and has reported that one motion and one bill should be
made votable.
Accordingly, I have the honour to present the 33rd report of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which
is deemed adopted when it is laid upon the Table.
I also have the honour to table the 34th report of the
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which deals with the
allocation of rooms for the day for the presentation of the
Auditor General's report for 1994.
If the House gives its consent, it is my intention to move
concurrence in the 34th report later this day.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-275, an act respecting the protection and
rehabilitation of endangered and threatened species.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is to protect biodiversity. It is
aimed at identifying, protecting and rehabilitating endangered
and threatened species and is a step toward the overall
protection of Canada's biodiversity.
In addition to identifying, protecting and rehabilitating flora
and fauna in Canada when threatened or endangered by human
activity, the Minister of the Environment would also have
powers to develop and implement programs to restore the
6263
populations of threatened and endangered species to
self-sustain the numbers.
Combined with the Canada Wildlife Act, strengthened by
amendments in June of this year, this bill is intended to help
ensure the protection of Canada's biodiversity and to enhance
the biodiversity convention adopted at the UN Conference on
the Environment and Development held in Rio de Janiero in
1992.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed).
* * *
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-276, an act respecting Lester B. Pearson Day.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling a private
member's bill, the purpose of which is to honour the Right Hon.
Lester B. Pearson for his contribution to Canada, the
international community and world peacekeeping by
designating the second Monday in February of each year as
Lester B. Pearson Day.
I hope that all members will support this bill which aims to
recognize a truly remarkable Canadian.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1510 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in the
34th report of the committee. I believe there would also be
consent to dispense with the reading of the report.
I move that the 34th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this
day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons) moved:
That the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development and the required staff be authorized to travel to
Toronto, Quebec City, Montreal, Akwesasne, Bathurst, Halifax, Vancouver,
Edmonton and Winnipeg between October 17, 1994 and December 2, 1994.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons) moved:
That a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be
authorized to travel to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest
Territories during the month of October 1994 to undertake a study of the
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and that the necessary staff accompany
the sub-committee.
The Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have the
unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I am proud to present a petition containing
2,600 signatures on behalf of the constituents of Wild Rose.
These petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal
Code to extend the same protection that is enjoyed by born
human beings to unborn human beings.
I respectfully submit this petition on this day.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, I have a
very extensive petition signed by hundreds of people from all
across Ontario, including places like Kemptville, Vanier,
Nepean and so forth.
The petitioners call on Parliament to recognize the public
threat of dangerous offenders and to amend the Criminal Code to
have such offenders detained indefinitely on warrant expiry,
when it is believed they may cause serious physical or
psychological harm or death of another person.
It is a pleasure for me to present this petition today.
(1515 )
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
have several petitions I would like to present under Standing
Order 36.
Whereas the majority of Canadians believe that the privileges
which society accords to heterosexual couples should not be
extended to same sex relationships, and whereas societal
approval including the extension of societal privileges would be
given to same sex relationships if any amendment to the
Canadian Human Rights Act were to include the undefined
phrase sexual orientation as a ground for discrimination, these
people petition Parliament not to amend the Human Rights Act
or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would
6264
tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or
of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibitive grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker,
my next petition to Parliament is with regard to abortion.
The petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal
Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human
beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker,
the next petition is with regard to euthanasia and concludes by
saying that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the
Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the
law which would sanction or allow aiding or abetting suicide or
active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker,
my final petition comes mainly from the constituents in the
Stockholm area of my riding who have a concern regarding
Saskatchewan's public libraries.
They would like to draw the attention of the House to the
following: that the library book postal subsidy is necessary for
the continued operation of interlending services among libraries
and plays a vital role in the distribution of cultural materials;
that cancellation of the subsidy or changes in the amount of the
subsidy would result in severely hampering public access to
information housed in libraries outside the resident's immediate
area; that maintaining the subsidy is a more effective, more
efficient use of public funds than any other alternative.
Therefore your petitioners call upon Parliament to continue the
library book postal subsidy and ensure that there be no further
erosion in the resulting library book postal rate.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, this is a
petition signed by a large number of Canadians from many
provinces including Ontario and Manitoba, Alberta and British
Columbia.
It calls upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada to
ratify the law of the sea. Among the many reasons given for this
very important step, Canadian failure to ratify the law of the sea
by November of this year would jeopardize Canada's eligibility
to participate in the law of the sea dispute settlement tribunal
and decision making council.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour
and the privilege to table two petitions from my constituents in
the riding of Lincoln pursuant to Standing Order 36 and duly
certified by the Clerk of Petitions.
The first petition calls upon Parliament to act immediately to
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal
Code of Canada.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln): Mr. Speaker, my second petition
requests that Parliament retain the present provisions of the
Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide or
euthanasia.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise in the House to present petitions signed by
over 100 constituents from Williams Lake, 100 Mile House, and
Lillooet, British Columbia.
My constituents call upon the government not to amend the
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or homosexuality.
They also call upon the government not to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination.
I present this petition with my concurrence.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
36 it is my honour to table a petition signed by 196 people from
the town of Maple Creek in my riding. The text is that whereas
except in police states there is no evidence that the incidence of
criminal or suicidal misuse of firearms is impeded by restrictive
legislation, whereas Canadian citizens are already
overburdened by unnecessary and ineffective gun control
legislation, we humbly pray and call upon Parliament to desist
from passing additional restrictive legislation with respect to
firearms or ammunition and to direct its attention to the
apprehension and adequate punishment of those who criminally
misuse firearms or other deadly weapons.
I heartily concur with this petition.
(1520 )
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and honour to rise in
the House to present three petitions duly certified by the Clerk
of Petitions on behalf of the constituents of Saanich-Gulf
Islands and surrounding area.
6265
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to
ensure that the present provisions of the human rights code, the
Canadian Human Rights Act and the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms prohibiting amendments to indicate societal approval
of same sex relationships, homosexuality and the undefined
phrase sexual orientation remain in force.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I wish to present two petitions today on
behalf of the constituents of Simcoe Centre.
The first is on the issue of euthanasia. The petitioners request
that current laws regarding active euthanasia be enforced.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is requesting the Government of Canada not to amend
the Canadian Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual
orientation. The petitioners are concerned about including the
phrase sexual orientation. Refusing to define the statement
leaves the interpretation open to the courts, a very dangerous
precedent to set.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I have the pleasure to present the attached
petition. It has been signed by 4,801 of my constituents.
These petitioners draw the attention of the House to the
following: that everyone has to be accountable for the mounting
debt burden; that members of Parliament should demonstrate
self-restraint to the citizens by cutting back on their lavish
pensions; that the qualifying time period for an MP's pension is
far too short; that the eligible age to receive an MP's pension is
much too young; that by MPs setting such an example of
restraint the tolerance of the citizens would be more
forthcoming.
Therefore your petitioners call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to change this pension plan.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to present two petitions from Simcoe North totalling 100
petitioners supporting the status quo with regard to firearms
ownership.
[Translation]
The petitioners ask the government not to impose any new
restriction regarding firearm acquisition certificates. They also
ask Parliament to instruct the judicial system to implement
current laws more strictly.
[English]
I believe we should all focus our attention on the real root
causes of crime which are embedded in discrimination, poverty,
familial dysfunction, inadequate parental responsibility and a
myriad of other socioeconomic problems rather than focus on
firearm control, the effectiveness of which is very questionable
at best.
[Translation]
While the safety of our communities concerns us all, I think
that the problem is put out of proportion. The fact remains that
Canada is no more violent as a society than before and that
criminal acts against people are not increasing uncontrollably.
To instill fear in people's mind without any regard for the facts is
despicable.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from more than 400 persons from all over Ontario
collected by people in Peterborough riding which concerns the
extradition of Leonard Peltier from Canada to the United States.
These petitioners point out that the information provided at
the time in the mid-seventies with respect to Mr. Peltier's case
was fabricated by the U.S. authorities and that since that time
new information has emerged that indicates that Leonard Peltier
was not guilty of the crime for which he has spent the last 18
years in prison.
Therefore these petitioners request that Parliament hold an
external review of the 1976 extradition hearings and that Mr.
Peltier be brought back to Canada for asylum.
I am pleased that in response to this and previous petitions the
Minister of Justice is conducting a review.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, today I rise in my place pursuant to Standing Order 36
to deliver two more petitions on the subject of gun control.
The petitioners are seriously concerned about the lack of
respect the government is showing for the integrity of
law-abiding responsible gun owners. They are opposing further
legislation for firearms acquisition and possession and call for
strict guidelines and mandatory sentences for the use or
possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.
I concur with my petitioners.
6266
(1525)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
question No. 61 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 61-Mr. Axworthy:
Does the government plan to spend money through public and private
agencies, on communications relating to initiatives undertaken by the
Department of Human Resources Development from January 1, 1994 to
December 31, 1994, and if so, how much?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Yes; $13.95 million.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question as
enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall the remaining
questions be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that the notice of motion for the production of papers stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all notices of
motions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
6266
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport) moved:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this
House disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I am proposing that the House of
Commons respond to the Senate's message, which proposed
amendments to Bill C-22, by indicating the complete rejection
by this House of its amendments to a bill which seeks to cancel
the contracts entered into by the previous government
concerning the redevelopment and ownership of terminals 1 and
2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport.
Bill C-22 was designed to cancel the agreements between Her
Majesty and the T1 T2 Limited partnership. These arrangements
were entered into, as everyone knows, during the dying days of
the last government now nearly a year ago. The agreements
turned over the development and operation of terminals 1 and 2
at Lester B. Pearson international for 57 years to a group of
private developers.
The agreements were examined and were found not to be in
the public interest. The facts in arriving at this determination
can be stated very succinctly. The agreements as I indicated
were signed just weeks before an election. They did not contain
a cancellation clause when the government of the day had to
know it was going to lose the election and the deal was being
widely questioned. The agreement was for 57 years, 20 years
more than the normal amortization period for buildings and the
time normally associated with the recovery of this kind of an
investment.
The after tax rate of return has been estimated by some at 14.2
per cent. However, this figure does not take into account profits
the individual partners would have realized on contracts they
held with the partnership. The actual rate of return for the
partners in this deal would be more in the order of 28 per cent.
The original tender period was for 90 days, then it was
extended to 120 days. The submissions that were received
covered thousands of pages of technical and financial
information because the process in effect had granted an
enormous advantage to those companies that had lobbied the
government for the project. They had made their preparations
and they were ready when the tender call was issued.
One of the proponents had commenced lobbying to achieve
the privatization of these terminals in mid-1989, had submitted
an unsolicited proposal, offered policy advice to then ministers
of the crown. Surely this is not a normal tendering process or
acceptable practice.
The Leader of the Official Opposition, now the Prime
Minister, indicated clearly before the election and while this
deal was being consummated that the deal would be reviewed.
I could go on with the list of unusual elements in this process
that Mr. Nixon described in his report as flawed. I do not really
think it is of much use at this stage. We have gone through it over
and over again.
6267
I want to point out today that Canadians generally and voters
in the metro Toronto area particularly understood the flaws in
the deal were enough to reject it, and they did so massively.
That is one on the major and principal reasons why the Liberals
took every seat in metro in that election last fall. If no one else
understood it, the voters knew a tender process is generally
designed to provide a winner and some losers. The previous
government cooked up a process which produced a winning
loser and losing winner. Rather than permitting the merger of
a financially strapped winner with a wealthy loser, as it turned
out, a new tender call obviously would have been what was
appropriate.
(1530)
One of the hired guns for the consortium has described Bill
C-22 as an act worthy only of a banana republic. I contend quite
the contrary because Bill C-22 provides for the correction of
actions that are characteristic of what goes on in so-called
banana republics.
[Translation]
The government is firmly committed to reject the ways of the
former government. This transaction is riddled with
interference by lobbyists, favouritism, behind-the-scenes
wheeling and dealing, manipulation of legitimate private
interests and disregard for public service impartiality. As a
whole, it is unacceptable.
The government intends to protect the country's interests and
the tqaxpayers' dollars. We believe that matters that can
jeopardize our economy and our competitiveness as a country
should be negotiated under a transparent and accessible process.
In legislating an end to these agreements, the government
took several factors into account: the need for a quick decision
on future requirements at Pearson, once these agreements were
set aside; the government's commitment to put public interest
before favouritism and the quest for excessive profits; and the
fact athat the private sector would have gained control of one of
the most important assets in the field of transportation by means
of an arrangement that would have generated unreasonable
profits for a favoured few.
[English]
On July 13 I announced a national airport policy that would
ensure the existence of a safe, efficient, competitive network of
airports across the country and would be managed in the best
interest of Canadian taxpayers and the travelling public.
However the opportunity to benefit from the advice and
competence of dedicated people representing regional and local
interest is being denied to Lester B. International Airport, owing
to the cloud that these agreements cast.
There are some in this place who would have us believe that if
the matter is before the courts for years somehow we could do
what would be done in the other airports across the country
through Canadian airport authorities. One would have to be very
naive to think that any group of citizens would take on the
operation of terminal 1 and terminal 2 while all the threat of
litigation and all that could imply hung out there for months and
in fact years, knowing the size and the magnitude of the
problem.
Terminals 1 and 2 at Toronto Pearson airport need upgrading.
I agree with my hon. friend opposite on that. The parking
garages are in a deplorable state. Safety and security are being
put in question. The list is long of what has to be done at
Pearson. The opportunity to provide travellers with newer, safer
and more modern services is being denied to users of Pearson.
We have stated time and time again that it is our intention to
treat the T1 T2 Limited Partnership in a fair and equitable
manner considering the circumstances. We have recognized that
not all the partners were involved to the same extent in this
flawed process and that private sector companies not part of the
consortium should not be unduly penalized.
We have asked that the partnership submit their out of pocket
expenses as well as those of third parties. We wish and we
undertake to see to it that all parties are repaid funds they have
spent consistent with good business practice, but we will not
compensate for lobbyist fees and charges.
(1535)
I am aware of the need for public accountability on the matter.
I know members of the House of Commons, the Auditor
General, the public accounts committee and the interested
parties, the people who have the taxpayers' interest at heart, will
review whatever decision is made by the government to pay
those legitimate out of pocket expenses. I welcome that
thorough review because I understand my responsibilities in the
matter.
Members of the House of Commons must understand that the
out of pocket expenses were for financiers, planners, engineers,
managers and designers. Not a single dime was spent on steel,
concrete, lumber, escalators or other services normally
associated with airport operations. Clearly the out of pocket
expenses did not enhance the value of the property or provide
any benefits to the taxpayer or the traveller.
Responsibility to the taxpayer and fairness toward T 1 T 2
Limited Partnership and third parties is what Bill C-22 is about.
Let us take a look at the amount of the bill the Tory majority of
members in the other place want to foist on Canadian taxpayers.
The consortium has replied to our request for its appropriate out
of pocket expenses by submitting claims to the Canadian people
for approximately $445 million. Of this amount, $415 million
represent loss of profits to the consortium or its partners in
various third party capacities. The consortium is not interested
6268
in fair compensation; it wants to sting the Canadian public for
over $400 million.
I have to ask all colleagues in the House and Canadians if they
think the Conservative majority in the other place is being
responsible when it says it is not concerned about the
consequences of its action as far as money goes. It claims that all
it is interested in is the principle of the bill. How can anyone be
so irresponsible with taxpayers' dollars?
I thank my Liberal colleagues in the other place. We have
been through a lot on the bill; a lot has been said. I have the
greatest respect for those members in the other place, including
independent members who mounted a stout defence of the
legislation and have spoken eloquently to protect the interests of
Canadian taxpayers. I know those people with their hearts and
their heads in the right place will rise to the occasion again.
As for those who presently hold the majority they cling to in
the other place, their method of dealing with the issue does not
improve my opinion of them, which should not come as a
surprise to anyone.
I sincerely believe Canadians in every part of the country who
support every political party represented in the House will be
outraged when they understand the size and the amount of the
bill the Tory majority in the other place is planning to drop on
them. The bill for their defeat of Bill C-22 will be $445 million.
An hon. member: What is the Reform Party going to do?
Mr. Young: Since my colleague refers to it, are my friends in
the Reform Party prepared to go along? I have listened carefully
in the months we have spent in the House together. Time and
time again we disagree on some issues, but on one issue I think
we have a lot in common. I have tried to do some things at
Transport Canada that will improve services to the Canadian
public but reduce the burden on the Canadian taxpayer. I think
we understand what we are trying to achieve together.
It is not just a question of principle or of letting people go to
the courts or of trying to have due process and all the rest of the
things we hear talked about. We are talking about Canadian
taxpayers faced with cuts being levelled at them by every
government in the country, no matter what their political stripe.
Cuts are being requested of us by members of the official
opposition and the Reform Party. We understand that.
I cannot believe anyone would agree with those in the other
place who say they do not care that their amendments would put
at risk hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. Do
they believe or does anyone believe Canadian taxpayers should
be asked to compensate developers for 57 years worth of lost
profits because they cooked up a deal with the Conservative
government that days later lost every seat in the greater Toronto
area and only held on to two of them in the whole country? Tory
senators do not want us to settle for out of pocket and reasonable
expenses. They want $445 million on this last trip to the trough
for their friends.
(1540)
I cannot believe that at least some of the Conservative
senators in the other place will not understand that Parliament
cannot condone this outrageous raid on Canadian taxpayers.
[Translation]
The leader of the Liberal Party, now Prime Minister of
Canada, warned all the parties not to sign the agreement. If the
promoters were so sure that this was a good deal for Canada,
why did they not wait and try to convince a new government and
the public? Was it because they knew their friends were going to
lose if there was no cancellation clause in the contract?
[English]
Our government is pledged to dealing with the private sector
in an open, fair and responsible manner; but we will always take
the taxpayers' interest into account. Our decision to cancel this
contract came after a clear and absolutely unequivocal signal to
all parties that abuses of the political process and practices we
consider to be unacceptable would not be tolerated. Last minute
deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars rammed through the
system in many instances against the will of members of the
public service will not be rubber stamped.
The facts I have outlined today and the details we have
learned in our negotiations to compensate out of pocket
expenses have all contributed to my resolve to see the bill passed
into law unamended.
The House passed Bill C-22 to ensure the future of Pearson
International Airport. The government is willing to consider
paying an amount up to $30 million. It is a lot of money. We
understand our commercial obligations and the need for the
crown to respect appropriate undertakings.
We have looked at the claims and we think a fair analysis of
reasonable business practices will allow us to compensate up to
$30 million to both the developers and third parties for the
reasonable out of pocket expenses that are at the core of the bill.
The majority in the other place wants the Canadian taxpayer
put in the position of having to fork over maybe $445 million.
The distinction is simple. The House recognized the need to
right a blatant wrong. The House recognized the need to
formally make the odious contract null and void. The House
recognized the need to return the parties to their pre-contract
status and to cover their legitimate out of pocket expenses
incurred in the ordinary course of business.
6269
The other place, I regret to say, in its majority decision to
bring in these amendments has ignored the interest of
Canadians. It has amended the bill so as, if we accepted those
amendments, to force the dispute into the courts where no one
in the House or in the other place would then have anything
to say about them. Then it would be a matter for the courts to
decide on legal interpretation and on argument how much the
bill would be for Canadian taxpayers.
I am not prepared to run that risk. I hope a majority of my
colleagues in the House and a majority of senators in the other
place will not run that risk either.
One has to ask whether the Tory scheme all along was to
ignore what was patently obvious in October 1993 and to set the
scene to make one last snatch at the public purse. Quite a money
grab it would be. If the majority of the other place perseveres
and wins this case, this scheme could result in the biggest
rip-off in Canadian history, $445 million of taxpayers' money.
(1545)
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my friends through you that the
government is not going to play Russian roulette with the Tory
majority in the other place with half a billion dollars of
Canadian taxpayers' money on the table. That is simply not an
option.
This deal resembles what might have been done in a banana
republic by a dying government during its last gasps. There is no
doubt and I readily admit it that this bill is an extraordinary
measure to bring before Parliament but I do not believe that
anyone in their right mind would deny that this was an
extraordinary deal and it has to be undone.
It is time to get on with the business of providing the country
with a safe, efficient and affordable national airport system with
Lester B. Pearson International Airport at Toronto at the centre
of this hub.
It is time to get on with the future of Canada's largest and most
important transportation facility and it is time that the
Conservative majority in the other place recognized that
Canadians understood that this was a bad deal and agreed that it
has to be dealt with resolutely.
We intend to ensure that Canadian taxpayers are not going to
get a $445 million bill from the consortium and their friends in
the other place.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues in the House of
Commons from all parties to join with us in sending a clear
message to the Senate that Parliament will protect the interests
of Canadians and that Bill C-22 must be passed without
amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, before I
begin my speech, I would like to address a few comments to the
minister before he leaves. I hope that he will find it in his code of
ethics to hear what I have to say despite his busy schedule. I
would like to address three points of his speech.
First of all, if it were not for the calendar in front of me
confirming this is September 28, 1994, I could have sworn we
were back in 1990, when the Liberal opposition in this House
was criticizing former Conservative Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney for appointing new senators to ram the GST bill
through the other place. An action considered offensive.
Now the shoe is on the other foot, with the Conservatives in
the majority in the other place. The Liberals did make use of
their majority in the Senate when the time came to oppose the
GST bill. This is the first comment I wanted to make.
My second comment is that throughout the election
campaign, the Bloc Quebecois candidates stressed
repeatedly-I know I did 250 times a day in my riding of
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans-the fact that Liberal or
Conservative, it is one and the same. We have proof of that today
in this debate and when we hear the minister's remarks about the
Conservative majority in the other place.
The third comment I wanted to make concerns the answer the
minister gave me when questioned in a meeting of the Standing
Committee on Transport. He said I knew full well that as part of
the Auditor General review process, all compensation granted
could undergo scrutiny. I just want to point out to the hon.
minister that all this auditing by the Auditor General takes place
after the fact. After irregularities have been detected, the
Auditor General tables three books confirming they took place,
but nothing can be done about it. That is why the Bloc Quebecois
called for the creation of a royal inquiry commission that could
have shed light on this whole matter.
(1550)
The minister revisited this issue in his speech today and
apparently said that various institutions would shed light on this
but only after the fact, after compensation has been paid. Of
course, if no compensation is paid, the problem vanishes.
On June 14, I addressed this House at the second reading of
Bill C-22 and asked that a royal commission be mandated to
shed light on the contract awarded to Pearson Development
Corporation. I put all my heart and energy in that speech,
because I really thought it was my last opportunity to sensitize
the House to this deal which was, if not illegal, at least highly
questionable.
6270
Although I disagree with the amendments proposed by the
Senate, I am still happy to have another opportunity to rise in
this House to try once again to shed light on a deal the current
Prime Minister himself promised to cancel before he was
elected, but I cannot understand how the deal can be scrapped
without getting to the bottom of this, once and for all.
I must tell you that I had several opportunities in the Standing
Committee on Transport to state, and I repeat it in this House,
we heard a few witnesses who agreed to appear before us, before
the transport committee. Still, even today, Canadians,
Quebecers and transport committee members cannot really say
that all the light has been shed on this deal.
My argumentation will revolve around three main themes.
First, the interference of an unelected house in an elected
house's decisions; second, the compensation to be paid to
Pearson Development Corporation; and third, the steps to be
taken to shed light on this shady deal.
Since the beginning, since Bill C-22 was tabled, the Bloc
Quebecois, of which I am the transport critic, has been against
paying any compensation to the developer before we find out the
truth about this deal.
Under the bill passed by the House of Commons, the
developer cannot go to the courts to obtain compensation from
the government. The Minister of Transport-remember the
clause in Bill C-22-reserved the right to set the amount of any
compensation to be paid. That is why we are still opposed to the
principle of Bill C-22.
The other place rose up against this bill and declared that the
position taken by the House of Commons was unconstitutional.
It has asked that Clauses 7 and 8 of the bill be deleted. As you
may recall, these clauses prevent the developers from initiating
court proceedings. What right does an unelected house such as
the other place have to reject the democratic decisions made by
this House whose members have been democratically elected by
the people?
I could perhaps take this opportunity to comment on the
actions of a representative of the other place appointed by the
government party, a former president of the Liberal Party,
former leader of the Liberal Party of Manitoba, former Leader of
the Opposition in Winnipeg, former killer of the Meech Lake
accord, who bluntly stated that the elected members of this
House were people with little education or at least less education
than the members of the other place. I say to this representative
of the other place that we at least have been elected by the people
and not appointed because of our friendship with the Liberal
Party of Canada, as she was.
That is outrageous and offensive. It really shows the urgent
need to abolish the other place, especially since it has been using
senators appointed by the Conservative government that was
repudiated by the people in the last election to prevent
democratically elected members of Parliament like myself from
making essential decisions.
(1555)
I mentioned earlier that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to any
compensation to Pearson Development Corporation as long as
all the facts surrounding this issue are not known, and I want to
tell the members of this House why it is important to shed light
on this case.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I represent my party on the
Standing Committee on Transport. It is important to point out
that, contrary to what Mr. Greg Weston wrote in the Ottawa
Citizen, it is the Bloc Quebecois which submitted to the
transport committee a list of 18 witnesses to appear before that
committee, this after our request for a commission of inquiry
was turned down by the House of Commons.
Contrary to what Mr. Weston wrote in the same newspaper,
the Bloc Quebecois is also the one which tabled motions to
subpoena those who had refused to appear before the committee.
It is unfortunate that a journalist would not recognize the good
work done by the Bloc Quebecois in its role as Official
Opposition. Instead, that person chose to give the credit to the
Reform Party which, as the hon. member for Kootenay
West-Revelstoke admitted, simply could not believe what was
happening.
I want to confirm once again that the Bloc Quebecois did
submit a list of witnesses that it felt should be heard by the
transport committee. That list contains 18 names. Here are those
names, as well as the reasons why we wanted these people to
testify and shed light on the whole issue.
The first person on the list is Mr. Peter Coughlin, President of
Pearson Development Corporation. The second one is Mr. Leo
Kolber, a Liberal representative in the other place, who was an
administrator of Claridge when the agreements were signed, this
according to the Financial Post Directory of Directors. Mr.
Kolber had organized, at his residence in Westmount, a
$1,000-per-guest reception attended, among others, by Mr.
Charles Bronfman, where the current Prime Minister of Canada
showed up, in early October of last year, right in the middle of
the election campaign.
The third person we wanted to hear was Mr. Herb Metcalfe, a
lobbyist with Capital Hill, as well as an official of Claridge
Properties and a former organizer for the current Prime Minister
of Canada. There was also Mr. Ramsey Withers, a Liberal with
close ties to the current Prime Minister who was Deputy
Minister of Transport when the call for tenders was made for
Terminal III at Pearson airport, as reported in the Ottawa
Citizen, on September 26, 1993. And there was Mr. Otto Jelinek,
a former Conservative minister who is now president of the
Asian affiliate of the Matthews group.
Then, there was Mr. Don Matthews, who was president of
Brian Mulroney's nomination campaign in 1983; he is also a
former president of the Conservative Party and a former
president of the Conservative fund-raising campaign, as
reported in the Ottawa Citizen, on September 29, 1993. We also
wanted to hear Mr. Ray Hession, a former Deputy Minister of
Industry and senior civil servant at Supply and Services, where
6271
contracts are awarded-sometimes, maybe, to friends of the
government, since it might be helpful during an election
campaign. He was appointed president of Paxport and hired all
the lobbyists who were to work on the privatization project for
Paxport Inc. This Mr. Hession left his job as president in
December 1992, after Paxport's bid was accepted by the federal
government. He was to be replaced by Don Matthews's son,
Jack, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen, on September 26, 1993.
There was also Mr. Fred Doucet, a Conservative lobbyist and
Brian Mulroney's former chief of staff. He was also a senior
advisor during Kim Campbell's campaign and was hired by Jack
Matthews five days after Mr. Hession left his job as president.
Three weeks later, Paxport created a consortium with its rival,
Claridge Properties. Then there was Mr. Jean Corbeil, a former
Conservative transport minister, who signed the agreement
while all the attention was focused on the leaders' debate,
during the election campaign. He had been Minister of
Transport for less than three months but, already, there were
information leaks to the effect that he was bent on privatizing
Pearson airport.
Then there was Mr. Robert Nixon, the investigator appointed
by the current Prime Minister, who recommended that the
contract be cancelled and who is a former Treasurer of Ontario
under the Liberal government of Mr. Peterson, as well as a
former leader of the Ontario Liberal Party.
(1600)
There was also Ms. Kim Campbell. Internal documents given
to her last August supposedly described the risks associated
with the transaction, and in particular the fee increase for
carriers, which would have cost taxpayers a lot of money.
We also asked the Standing Committee on Transport to
summon the current Minister of Transport, and this request was
agreed to.
We made all those requests not only to get the information I
referred to earlier, but also to prove that, despite the fact that
lobbyist fees are not compensated under this bill, taxpayers will
still have to pay part of the expenses incurred by the
corporations to make up for the lost tax revenues due to the
corporate tax exemption for lobbying services.
What we wanted to ask the minister and what we did manage
to ask him was: How can you justify the involvement of
taxpayers in a patronage transaction? This fact alone justifies a
public inquiry.
Also, the Minister of Transport himself stated that lobbying
services should not be tax deductible, as reported by the Ottawa
Citizen on March 9, 1994.
We also wanted to hear from Air Canada representatives, who
were involved in this deal, since the government negotiated a
decrease in rent for the next few years in return for a
commitment by the corporation to remain at terminals 1 and 2 at
the Pearson airport in Toronto.
We asked to hear from Mr. William Rowat, assistant deputy
minister at Transport Canada, who was appointed by the past
Clerk of the Privy Council to help move things along. You have
to remember that he was appointed in March of 1993.
We also asked to hear from Mr. Bob Wright, closely tied to the
Liberal Party of Canada, who is negotiating, secretly of course,
the compensation to be awarded to the consortium.
We wanted to hear from the Toronto Airport Authority, a
public agency similar to the Aéroports de Montréal
organization, which wanted to be considered as a potential
manager for Terminals 1 and 2, but claims to have been
intentionally overlooked by the Conservatives.
We asked to hear from Ms. Huguette Labelle and, finally,
from Mr. Robert Vineberg, Pearson Development Corporation's
lawyer and board member.
In each and every one of these 18 cases, there were
discussions in the committee on transport as to whether or not to
call these witnesses before the committee. If the Liberals have
nothing to hide, why did they refuse systematically to summon
the people on our list so that we could clarify this deal?
Let us start with Mr. Robert Nixon, a key player in this issue.
Mr. Nixon was the one who carried out the inquiry into Pearson
Development Corporation at the request of the current Liberal
Prime Minister. Last November, he recommended that the deal
signed by the Conservatives and the Pearson Development
Corporation be declared void.
Yet, the Liberals have refused to ask Mr. Nixon to appear
before the committee on transport. Our resolution was defeated,
four to two, by the Liberal majority. Is this normal? Do they
have something to hide?
As for Mr. Robert Wright, who is no less important than Mr.
Nixon, the answer of the Liberal majority in the committee was
the same: ``No.'' Believe it or not, only six of the 18 people I
invited were heard by the committee. These were Mr. Ray
Hession, the current Minister of Transport, Mr. Peter Coughlin,
Mr. Don Matthews, someone from Air Canada and Mr. Robert
Vineberg, representing Pearson Development Corporation.
6272
I have used up all arguments to convince my colleagues from
the committee to subpoena people on the Bloc Quebecois's list
of witnesses. At that time, I remember very clearly the
chairperson of the transport committee, the hon. member for
Hamilton West, telling me: ``Come on, sir, you know perfectly
well that this is a procedure which has not been used in Canada
since 1917 or 1918''. But that was totally false. I sincerely hope
that the chairperson of the Transport Committee did not
knowingly try to mislead me because I checked and I found that
that procedure was used in 1989, in 1990 and in 1992 to
summon witnesses.
(1605)
There was even one instance, in 1989 or 1990, when the
present government House leader used that special procedure to
summon witnesses to appear before the committee. I sincerely
hope that the chairperson of the Standing Committee on
Transport was not acting in bad faith.
I will give you another example. I told the committee
members that since Leo Kolber was a parliamentarian from the
other place, he would surely co-operate with us given his duties.
Furthermore, at the time the contracts were signed, the Ottawa
Sun reported that on October 10, 1993, that parliamentarian was
a member of Claridge's board of directors and owned 60 per cent
of the shares in Pearson Development Corporation.
You have to admit that he was a key witness who could have
helped us shed some light on the matter. On top of that, the
Ottawa Citizen reported on November 9, 1993 that the same
member of the other place had given a reception at $1,000 a
plate in his Westmount residence at the beginning of October, a
reception attended by Mr. Charles Bronfman, among others, and
by the present Prime Minister who, at the time, was in the
middle of his election campaign.
If I had the time, I could also talk about the cleaning up of
political party funding. We saw again, as recently as yesterday,
that some people preferred to receive contributions from large
firms rather than to have a clean election fund. The Bloc's
position is clear and that is why the hon. member for Richelieu
moved such an amendment.
I could give other examples. All those arguments that I put
forward were useless since my request was denied by the Liberal
majority on the committee. I could also mention the case of Mr.
Otto Jelinek, a former Conservative minister who is now
president of the Asian subsidiary of the Matthews group. The
answer was the same as in most other cases. The Liberal
members on the Transport Committee told me that it would be
premature to subpoena Mr. Jelinek since he intended to appear
voluntarily.
You will understand that, given the refusal of my Liberal
colleagues to summon the people who could have helped this
House understand the situation, I have no choice but to say that
this matter is not transparent. I wonder if the Liberals are
protecting the same people as the Conservatives or some other
people. I also wonder if it is possible that the friends and backers
of the system contribute to the election funds of both old parties.
What is troubling is that Canadians still do not know all the
facts as to why the contract was awarded to Pearson
Development Corporation. And I find it sad that the Liberal
majority is enjoying hiding the truth.
It must also be pointed out that if the Bloc Quebecois does not
know all the facts, it cannot be expected to decide on the validity
of the financial claims made by each of the concerned groups.
When we look at the Nixon report, some words leave us with a
bitter aftertaste. We could wonder what Mr. Nixon meant when
referring to malversation in connection with lobbyists. Did he
have any real evidence of this? Do you know anything about it,
Mr. Speaker? If you do not know, I do not know either. No
witness knows. Nobody but the opposition seems to want to
know about it on the Hill. But then, who does know? We are
being asked to make a decision involving the expenditure of tens
of millions of dollars when nobody really knows what the Nixon
report meant.
The Minister of Transport spoke about criteria governing
compensation claims. Could the minister make these criteria
public? If he has nothing to hide, I am sure he will not hesitate to
do so.
Mr. Speaker, you are a lawyer and you know very well that due
process was not followed by Mr. Nixon. In French law too there
is the rule of audi alteram partem, the right of both parties in a
case to be heard. I am sorry, but this rule does not seem to have
been followed, no more than due process, by Mr. Nixon.
(1610)
It is unfortunate that the minister should rely on a report full
of half-truths to request-and that is what he is doing under
clause 10 of the bill-the authority to spend tens of millions of
dollars.
When will the minister launch a public inquiry to get right to
the bottom of this matter? Several Liberal members approved of
this inquiry, but they were gagged and had to toe the party line.
If the government motion is passed, obviously the bill will be
passed too, but would the Minister of Transport agree? For want
of a public inquiry, I ask him once more to have the Standing
Committee on Transport examine any agreement and make
recommendations before he signs it. If the minister says that the
agreement was rejected because it was not acceptable for
Quebecers and Canadians, why not give elected representatives
the opportunity to make the necessary recommendations? The
government would demonstrate its openness. Otherwise, a
feeling of frustration will linger, and doubts will remain in our
mind and that of the public in Quebec and Canada.
6273
The best way to protect reputations is visibility and openness,
and a public inquiry. Of course such an inquiry will be costly and
will take time, but I ask this House if democracy costs
something. Is democracy too costly? Are the costs more
important than living in a democracy? I am sorry, but democracy
is priceless. You cannot put a price on getting the facts and
spending taxpayers' money wisely.
However, if the minister refuses to conduct a public inquiry
because of costs and delays, he could ask a parliamentary
committee to do it. Does the minister realize that the whole
tendering process was botched? Consequently, will the minister
take the necessary steps to prevent such a fiasco from happening
again?
The government could refuse to order a parliamentary
committee or the Standing Committee on Transport to conduct a
public inquiry; this would bring us back to square one. If that
happens, can the minister tell us how long the compensation
claims process will take? As we know, the Nixon Report
mentioned obscure dealings by lobbyists. Since these schemes
were not revealed to the public, can we fear that such scheming
will taint the compensation process?
At the transport committee hearings, when Robert Vineberg,
Pearson Development Corporation's lawyer, appeared before
us, I had prepared some very tough questions. If you do not
believe me, you need only refer to the proceedings of the
Standing Committee on Transport. It is an aberration. We had
written to the representative, Mr. Vineberg's client, who told us
that Mr. Vineberg would answer for him. I asked Mr. Vineberg
over and over again if he was speaking for his client and he
assured me that he was not, that he was speaking in his own
name and that he could not speak for his client.
What happened was that two people were not only mocking us
to our faces, but were arguing back and forth and we never got an
answer. Mr. Vineberg is a well-known member of the legal
profession here in Canada and I asked him four questions:
Should an already flawed contract- because the rules of assent
were flawed from the beginning-provide for compensation in
case of cancellation? Would he agree with a public enquiry?
Would his firm willingly submit financial analyses? Finally, I
made a brief comment saying that those who live in glass houses
should not cast stones.
(1615)
I will not quote the answers because not one of them is worth
repeating in this House. We would also have liked to get answers
to other questions. For example, while he was involved in the
case, had he ever been aware of any malversation in connection
with lobbyists or of civil servants or political personnel being
too closely interested in the Pearson issue? Also, did he agree
with the profit analysis in the Nixon report which indicated a 14
per cent profit after taxes? I also asked him if he did not find it a
little bit strange that bidders were only given 90 days to prepare
their bid for a 57-year contract worth $1.6 billion? Are such
things normal and reasonable in a democratic society? We have
to wonder. The answer is obvious. There is not one Canadian
who will find that it makes sense.
I am only relating some of the juiciest parts of what Mr.
Vineberg said. I understand that Canadians and Quebecers will
be able to read the whole thing in the minutes of the proceedings
of the Standing Committee on Transport. It is a jewel in its own
right, but the answers are not worth repeating in this House.
I could go on talking all day long about this famous Bill C-22
and the proposed amendments. I have already spent a lot of the
taxpayers' money to convince this House to satisfy Canadians
by keeping them informed of ongoing negotiations between the
government and Pearson Development Corporation.
When I talk about money spent, I am talking about the
transport committee's hearings, and the salaries of federal civil
servants, researchers and MPs. This is a lot of money spent to
achieve very little. I would like to add that my party and I agree
with the government's motion to reject all the amendments
presented by the other place. I am in agreement with the
government but for different reasons.
First, as I mentioned earlier, I cannot accept that non-elected
individuals try to have the upper hand on decisions in this
country. Second, I cannot accept that the Pearson Development
Corporation be given compensation for any loss incurred before
April 13, 1994 since the circumstances surrounding the
awarding of the contract were flawed to start with. This being
said, if we reject the amendments proposed by the other place
and adopt the government's motion, a doubt will always linger
in the minds of Canadians for lack of a public inquiry.
Once again, I plead with my hon. colleagues to allow a royal
commission of inquiry to get to the bottom of this so that trust in
our leaders may be restored.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We will now proceed to
the other stage of debate where members will have 20 minute
interventions, subject to 10 minutes questions and comments.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
I understand that the Liberals may not have as much support in
caucus for this motion as they might like us to believe. I am sure
being good members of the old style party of the past that they
will vote the party line as they are told. I understand that they
cannot find anyone else to speak to this debate. I am really sad if
that is the case because I have some questions I would like to ask
and have answered here today. We will have to make of the
process what we can.
6274
This whole business of Bill C-22 and the Pearson
development contract was a very questionable process at best.
We question the type of lobbying that was done, the allegation at
least that there was an excessive amount, the close links that
those lobbyists had with the Prime Minister's Office and a lot of
the actions that the government itself took, the short duration,
using one of the bidders to provide a lot of the parameters for the
bid in the first place, the way it was signed at the last minute
when it was known that the Tory government was on its way out.
It was a very questionable deal. There is no argument on that at
all.
We have a backroom deal. One of the problems is the
government is offering us a backroom solution to this problem.
That is not acceptable.
(1620 )
We have not heard a single piece of evidence stating
specifically what improper, illegal action was taken by the
bidder in this process. That is what we are trying to get to the
bottom of.
My colleague in the Bloc tried to get to the bottom of that. We
tried to get witnesses in and had very little luck with it, either
co-operation from the witnesses or for that matter co-operation
from the government in subpoenaing those witnesses.
On the other hand, it is said that during the time this was
signed the leader of the Liberal Party said that if he got in this
deal would be cancelled. That is not what he said. I want to
clarify that. He stated that he would hold an independent public
inquiry into this entire process.
I have talked to the principals involved in this consortium.
They said that did not hold any fear for them. They welcome a
public inquiry into this. They will open their books to anyone, as
they did when this so-called public inquiry took place. They
said the have nothing to fear, they have done nothing wrong.
What happened with our independent public inquiry? The
government hired Mr. Robert Nixon. Is it really an inquiry when
from start to finish in finished report the whole thing took 20
days? It took place largely behind closed doors. We were not
able to suggest who he might talk to. Several of the people the
industry thought would be the obvious people for Mr. Nixon to
talk to did not get called in. There was no opportunity to cross
examine the evidence that was put in. Whether or not it was a
fair inquiry or a public inquiry does not seem to be answered.
To decide whether the inquiry was independent we have to
look at who Mr. Nixon is. Mr. Nixon is the former leader of the
Ontario Liberal Party. Mr. Nixon was the chairman of the 1987
Liberal task force on Pearson Airport. Mr. Nixon is the father of
a sitting Liberal member. Immediately after he put in his report
in 30 days, Mr. Nixon was named as chairman of the atomic
energy commission. Independent?-I hardly think so.
There is another allegation. I think it is fair to bring the
allegations into this House because all we have heard about this
contract are allegations. In Mr. Nixon's so-called independent
public inquiry there was no evidence. There were only
allegations of possible improprieties, of possible wrongdoing.
There was not one shred of hard evidence brought forward by
Mr. Nixon.
The allegation that is floating in industry right now from
many sources is that there are two Nixon reports, one Mr. Nixon
actually wrote and one that was written for him and actually
submitted. Do I have proof of this?-no, I do not, any more than
the proof we have seen of the wrongdoings by the Pearson
consortium in this whole deal. Allegations are all we have seen.
Then the Standing Committee on Transport decided it would
hold hearings and we would have a chance to air all this out and
find out what went wrong. As my colleague in the Bloc stated,
many people were asked to come before the committee but very
few of them showed up. This did not help the case of the
consortium.
I was not very pleased that a lot of these people who claimed
that they were hard done by did not come forward to defend
themselves. We also did not get very much co-operation from
the Liberal government in trying to ensure that we got those
people in.
There were a couple of other interesting events. Aside from
the people we asked who did not come there were several
principals who asked specifically to come to the hearing and
were denied. These were people like William Pearson, the
president of Agra Engineering, George Ploder, president of
Bracknell Corporation, and Scott McMasters, president North
America, of Allders International Canada. One of the principal
investors in this whole contract was denied the right to come
before the committee. Why is the government trying to hide
what truly happened in this whole process?
The topic of the return on investment being excessive has
been brought up, while we have heard figures that are all over
the scale.
(1625 )
The government was first alleging 18.5 per cent. Today we
heard some figures going up to 28 per cent. The reality is this
was examined by a firm I think the House would agree is
credible. I am so overwhelmed by some of the stuff the
government has done that I am at a loss for words on some of
this. The firm I am talking about is Price Waterhouse. I do not
think anybody here is going to question the integrity of Price
Waterhouse. It said 14 per cent return.
6275
It is really interesting that the Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce was one of the tentative investors in this. It invested
at what looked like a 18.5 per cent return on that investment.
When it dropped to 14 per cent, which is exactly what Price
Waterhouse says it was, CIBC pulled out because it was not a
good enough return for the risk involved in this type of
investment. Maybe the government wants to suggest that CIBC
is not credible, I do not know. It has not answered that.
Included in this particular bill is the fact that there should be
no compensation for lobbying fees. If there was something
illegal about the way this corporation lobbied the government
then certainly it should not get compensation for any illegal
activity whatsoever, no matter what.
If the lobbying was legal according to the government and we
like many others do not like the fact that there is lobbying, then
until such time that the rules are changed it is the same as
somebody driving down the street at 90 kilometres an hour in a
90 kilometre zone and someone pulls out from a side street in
front of them and gets hit; an investigation after deciding that 90
kilometres is too fast on that street. You do not charge the person
who was doing 90 kilometres because he was doing it in
accordance with the law, even if it was too fast for that street.
That was not his fault. You change the speed limit but you do not
do it retroactively. That is what the government is looking at in
this particular case.
It talks of third party contract liability. It is going to allow a
few dollars to compensate the principles in this for third party
contract liability. Third parties do not have a contract with the
government. They have a contract with the Pearson consortium.
They can sue in court for whatever amount they care to sue for. It
could well exceed $30 million figure the minister threw out here
today and there is absolutely no way for the principals in this to
pay it. They have that much money out themselves, whether it is
by regular and proper activities or whether it is some proper
activity, notwithstanding they have already spent in excess of
that. Now all of these third parties are supposed to be included in
the settlement of $30 million. It may or may not be appropriate.
We have not seen the figures.
There is an ongoing problem with terminal 1 and terminal 2
and the government has not told us what its alternative to this
contract is. I tried to find that out from the minister today in
Question Period. We did not get an answer, which of course
surprises me. It is Question Period, not answer period. That
seems to be a very common thing, we do not get answers from
the government to our questions.
This is something that should be brought out if we are going to
deal properly with this entire business evolving around the
Pearson airport.
We are looking for something that is very open, very public
and very honest. The government is looking to make a secret
compensation deal behind closed doors. The minister was asked
when he came before the standing committee if he would make
this process visible.
I proposed an amendment both at committee and at third
reading here in the House to say we would support this bill if
instead of hiring another independent person linked to the
government who was going to collect all these claims from the
consortium, the minister could decide whether he was going to
pay, who he was going to pay and how much he was going to pay
them. We asked if he will make these figures public, if we will
be privy to these figures and the process used to get to them. His
answer was about as vague as it was here today dealing with T1
and T2.
He said they might be able to release some of the figures, but
they are not sure because cabinet is involved. The minute we
involve cabinet we could wrap the figures up for 20 years and
know absolutely nothing about what went on. Under those
circumstances there is no way to ensure fairness has taken place.
(1630)
Today in his address the minister said that the threat of
litigation was holding up a new solution. No, it is not. We can
have all the solutions in the world telling us what to do. There is
absolutely nothing that is holding up some alternative solution
to the Pearson airport problem with terminal 1 and terminal 2.
All the minister has to do is agree with what is being proposed in
the House back from the other place. The contract will be
cancelled; it will be over. The fact that litigation is going on in
court will not hold up new solutions.
We are looking for a court review of the entire process. That
was not our solution; that was not what we desired. We wanted it
done in the House through the Standing Committee on Transport
where the entire process could be brought forth.
One of the risks that actually happens if it goes to court is that
the government could end up reaching a settlement and we
would never know the true story about what happened in the
Pearson bid process. That is not something we desire.
To turn around at this point and simply close the door, to let
the minister decide he will pay what he wants and there will be
no recourse and no argument, the public will never find out who
was at fault in the process.
Was it the people who bid? Was it the Tory government and
the way it was done? Or, do the Liberals have a large part in
some of the problems that went on here? As it turns out they talk
about the Tory cronies coming to the trough, but in the later
stages of the proposal there were as many, if not more, Liberals
involved in both the consortium and the lobbying. Is that what
the government is really trying to hide?
6276
The salvage value of the work being done has not been
answered. We want to know what the government has for an
alternative process to deal with the problem at Pearson. All
kinds of money have been spent on plans, drawings,
engineering, passenger load surveys, negotiations with users
and tentative contracts that could still be honoured by a new
contractor. There is a tremendous value in that, but until we
know what it is we do not know what compensation the
government should pay out for those things specifically and
what the Canadian taxpayer will be able to recoup through the
process.
The minister suggested that taxpayers are faced with cuts and
therefore we should not consider going into court and allowing
the contractors from Pearson to get a large settlement. Is that not
interesting? Does that not send a wonderful message out to the
business community?
It says that the Liberal government is in trouble with its
overspending. The Liberal government has to make some cuts
somewhere. It does not particularly care if they are fair or
normal as long as they will save a lot of money and as long as
someone else can be blamed. That is where some of these cuts
will come from.
I do not want to see money wasted by the government any
more than anyone else other than probably the government. We
bring forward financially responsible proposals and the
government seems to want to waste money. It is strange that it
would suddenly turn around and want to be financially
responsible. It is not proposing financial responsibility.
The matter has to go back to the courts. The courts will decide
what went wrong in the process. They will discover whether
there was any illegal or improper conduct on the part of anyone
involved in the process and they will set the compensation
accordingly.
If there was something wrong with the way the consortium
lobbied the government it will be identified. The principals will
not be compensated for illegal, improper type conduct. If they
conducted themselves properly, just because we do not happen
to like the way the rules work we cannot punish private
enterprise for following the rules of the government. If that
happens it sends out a message that no one should do business
with the government, and that is not the kind of message we
want to send out.
As far as what is going to happen to the bill, the Liberal
government has an absolute dictatorship for the next four years.
Obviously it can pass anything it wants as long as it can keep its
backbenches in order. So far it has been able to do that. We do
not know how long it will be able to maintain that, but for now at
least it has managed to keep its members voting the way they are
told. We have to suppose that it will go back to the other place.
How are we going to deal with it? I am going to meet with the
Senate. It is very clear we want a triple E Senate, but as long as
we have a Senate there has to be some function for it. If it
provides the chamber of sober second thought, which is the
function of the Senate, we will work with what we have to work
with until such time as we can improve it. We will try to find a
solution or an alternative way to bring the matter back to the
House yet again until the government deals fairly and properly
with the whole matter.
(1635)
We will not support the government's motion.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel): Mr. Speaker, I was
listening very passively to the hon. member's speech until I
heard the word ``dictatorship''. It was like being hit over the
head with a two by four. It brought me to attention.
Mr. Silye: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Quorum,
please.
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that it
is fine to call for quorum but we have many members in
committees right now and doing House duty as do other parties.
If we start these shenanigans about quorum, we are going to be
spending taxpayers' money.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. A request has been
duly made by the member. He has asked for quorum. By
recognizing the other member on his intervention I believe we
were getting into a matter of debate.
Mr. Reed: The time the House was shut down with a quorum
call probably resulted in another $100,000 being added to the
national debt.
My comments will be brief. The hon. member mentioned a
four-year dictatorship and the government keeping the
backbenches in line. He should know that the government was
elected in the most democratic process existing on the face of
the earth. Whatever he may think about that election forming a
dictatorship, I suggest he is dead wrong. If he wants to compare
what happens in this country with what happens in any other
country on the face of the earth he is welcome to do it. I think he
should do it before he makes accusations of the kind.
I assure him the backbench is totally united on the issue. As a
member who comes from the metropolitan Toronto area or its
periphery and whose constituents work at Pearson, at ancillary
industries at Pearson, in the airline industries and so on, I say
that a successful outcome to the bill is very important.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, the term dictatorship suggests when
those in power can do whatever they wish. That is exactly what
we have. Any time we have a majority party it is the equivalent
of a temporary dictatorship. It can be a benevolent dictatorship,
if it wishes to get re-elected, but it has absolute power
nonetheless. That is where that particular term comes from.
6277
The hon. member mentioned the people who work at Pearson
and the fact that he comes from Toronto. I assume he was going
to suggest they had argued in the political process of getting
elected that they were going to challenge the Pearson deal. They
did not challenge the Pearson deal. They simply overturned it.
We are talking about contract cancellation. That is not what
they are doing. They are trying to pretend the contract never
took place. That is not what they said they would do during the
campaign. They said they would have a public review. We are
still waiting.
(1640)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I welcome this opportunity to speak again on Bill C-22 and the
amendments proposed by the other place.
Everyone in Quebec and Canada knows what effect this
shameless attempt at privatizing the airport could have had if it
had gone through and who would have had their palms greased
as we say in Quebec with such a patronage-prone, foul-smelling
plan as that to privatize Pearson Airport.
All the potential transactions, all the provisions of the
privatization contract per se and all the people involved in this
privatization attempt have not been brought to light yet.
Again, not only did we not get right to the bottom of the
matter, but Bill C-22 still contains provisions which could be
conducive to patronage, that which the people and Quebec and
Canada detest most about the politics of older parties.
When you read in this bill that we continue to leave it to the
Minister of Transport's absolute discretion to compensate
promoters if appropriate, I find that is absolutely absurd. My
colleagues have been pointing this out over and over since this
bill was introduced and will continue to do so at every stage,
unless the government changes course along the way.
I must say that this government's attitude toward Bill C-22
and privatization is worse than anything we have seen under the
Conservatives. The Conservatives at least were upfront. They
were open about their patronage deeds and about the fact they
greased the palms of their friends, while the Liberals have a
more underhanded, almost wicked, way of doing things. But
they continue to do it after having rent their clothes, in fact a
closet-full of made-to-measure shirts, starting with the
Minister of Transport.
On November 29, 1993, the Minister of Transport himself
openly told the media that he was thinking about holding an
inquiry, an exhaustive inquiry into the ins and outs of this
attempt to privatize Pearson airport. It was after he realized that
it was not just Conservatives involved in promoting this project
or in the investments connected with the privatization of
Pearson, but that there were also friends of the Liberals, who
had made contributions to the Liberal Party of Canada, that the
Minister of Transport, probably on the advice of his cabinet
colleagues, backed down and offered us instead the report by
Mr. Nixon, a very close advisor to, not to say a member of, the
Liberal Party of Canada.
From the beginning of the debate on Bill C-22, we spent some
time cross-checking contributors to the Liberal Party coffers,
even Canadian companies who had made contributions, and the
principal players involved in Pearson. And we found the
connections very easy to establish. It was obvious that
somewhere there were people who had such an amazingly
underhanded, nebulous influence that it halted the process of
inquiry into the privatization, the attempt at privatization of
Pearson airport.
Yesterday, the attitude of the Liberal majority to the bill
tabled by my colleague from Richelieu on public funding of
parties was proof to me that members of the Liberal Party of
Canada are just as steeped in patronage as the Conservatives.
(1645)
They roundly defeated a bill that would have applied, at the
federal level, the old dream that Mr. Lévesque made come true
in Quebec, namely financing parties with contributions from
individual citizens of Quebec and Canada who require defended
after, who require that those they elect defend their interests and
not the interests of the very rich friends of the regime, especially
of the lobbyists who previously belonged to former Liberal or
Conservative governments. Their attitude yesterday tells me a
lot about the inflexibility they have shown every time we asked
them to set up a real inquiry process that would fully elucidate
the attempt to privatize Pearson.
Why do we need to get to the bottom of it? Because, if we were
able, with the fragmentary information at our disposal, to
perceive the possibility of ethical problems and patronage in
this issue, it may mean that there were many more in the past
under the Conservative government and under the Liberal
government before that as well. But above all, it means that the
incongruities and strange happenings involving very powerful
lobbies connected to the main federal parties may occur again in
the future.
The taxpayers of Quebec and Canada find that quite costly.
They must find out what happened in the Pearson affair and
especially they must be assured that such incidents will not
recur in future, where friends of the party, former ministers,
senators, people who worked very closely with the government
as senior officials affiliated with the old parties got rich at
taxpayers' expense. That is why it is important to clear this
6278
matter up. To find out whether the lobbyists accused of having
influence-and we are not the ones who say so; it is in the Nixon
report, the Liberal Party's report-the lobbyists accused of
having extraordinary influence in this contract, lobbyists like
Pat MacAdam, a Conservative lobbyist and friend of Brian
Mulroney; lobbyists like Bill Fox, a Conservative lobbyist and
college friend of Brian Mulroney.
We have been naming names for a long time now, because
they should be ashamed if they have done something wrong,
they should be ashamed to continue pressuring the government
not to order a public inquiry. As professional lobbyists, they are
certainly still worrying about the possibility, perhaps only a
slight one because, after all, these people are friends, that there
will be a public inquiry that would reveal to Quebecers and
Canadians the amazing extent of their influence.
So, I go on because I want to make sure that Harry Near, a
Conservative lobbyist and long-time supporter, Don Matthews,
a former president of Brian Mulroney's nomination campaign in
1983 and former president of the Conservative Party, Hugh
Riopelle, a lobbyist and the strong man in Mulroney's office,
and John Llegate, Michael Wilson's personal friend, exert no
more untraceable influence. They can lobby in a normal and
legitimate manner, but when a Liberal report, the Nixon report,
says that they exerted an influence which went beyond the
bounds of normal lobbying activities, I think that we should
have greater doubts than those timidly expressed in the Nixon
report.
This deal did not just involve Conservative lobbyists or
people close to the Conservative government. That is probably
why the Minister of Transport, who went loudly after the Bloc
Quebecois members when they told him the truth, that is
probably why the Minister of Transport backed down within the
space of a few weeks saying: No, there will be no inquiry, just a
short preliminary analysis about the possible financial
consequences for the Canadian government if we had privatized
Pearson. He realized that friends of the Liberal Party were also
involved.
As my colleague, our critic for transport, said earlier, there
was Senator Leo Kolber, well-known for his haute cuisine
dinner at $1,000 a plate. During the election campaign, Mr.
Kolber invited all those who could have, according to the Nixon
Report, a somewhat obscure albeit overwhelming influence on
the government to come and meet the next Prime Minister at a
private dinner at $1,000 a plate.
(1650)
Among his distinguished guests was Mr. Bronfman, who was
directly involved in the privatization of the Pearson Airport.
Also involved in this deal were Herb Metcalfe, a lobbyist for
Capital Hill, a representative of Claridge Properties and former
organizer for the current Prime Minister, as well as Ramsey
Withers, a Liberal lobbyist with close ties to the Prime Minister.
I think only one or two of these worthy Liberal supporters
would have been enough to persuade the Minister of Transport
to have a change of heart, since the minister was already not
quite convinced that he needed to go after not only the friends of
the government, but also of Canada's financial establishment.
The inconsistencies identified by a review and an in-depth
examination of the privatization contract should have drawn
anyone's attention. I have seen a lot of sales contracts in my
lifetime, but none like this one. I have never seen, for example, a
central government agreeing, like the Canadian government did,
to insert a clause in the privatisation deal in order to cut the
duration of the contract in half so that the promoters could avoid
paying the Ontario sales tax which would have come to about
$10 million.
In complicity with the Canadian central government, which
some people find so praiseworthy, the promoters were able to
save $10 million in Ontario taxes. I think that is a first, that
never before did a federal government deliberately cause
prejudice to provincial finances as this privatization contract
did.
We also saw other discrepancies in the calculation of the basic
rent. The agreement said that Pearson Development Corporation
would normally pay to the government 30.5 per cent of its gross
revenue from the previous year, up to a maximum of 125 million
dollars in gross revenue, and that it would pay a rent equal to
45.5 per cent of gross revenue in excess of this figure.
But according to the Nixon Report, and remember it was
prepared by a friend of the Liberal Party, the gross revenue was
deliberately reduced in the contract because unusual deductions
were included which lowered the rent required from the
developers in the future. Given those deductions and the
omission of all extraordinary income received by Pearson
Development Corporation, the rent for airport facilities was
reduced considerably.
We also noticed a few things that made no sense, some very
innovative clauses in the Pearson privatization contract; it said
that even though the federal government would no longer be
involved in airport activities after the privatization, it-that is
the taxpayers from Quebec and Canada-would assume all of
Pearson's debts. The government was no longer involved, but it
would have to pay the debts; so I was paying, my colleague was
paying, Quebecers and Canadians were paying for all the bad
debts of the Pearson Airport. However, as taxpayers, we no
longer had any say in the airport's activities.
I could mention other flaws; we did so at the second reading.
There is, for example, the absence of any serious financial
analysis. Why should we privatize just about the only profitable
airport in Canada without requiring some serious financial
analysis? In the case of simple one million dollar deals, for the
purchase of companies for example, financial analyses and
6279
spin-off analyses are conducted. The absence of any serious
analysis in the case of a transaction of such a scope simply
makes no sense.
(1655)
We could also have talked about the lack of a serious and
independent analysis on projected revenue. We could have
talked about the lack of analysis of the investors' situation.
Those investors' were not very solvent, but with the overall
benefits that the federal government was giving them, they were
sure to be able to spend the rest of their lives in lavishness.
This attempt to privatize the Pearson airport is highly
outrageous. No wonder that Canadian government finances are
in such a mess. Why is it that the federal accrued debt will be
around $550 billion this year? Why is it that we have so much
trouble reducing the deficit below $40 billion annually? Why is
it that we cannot control our government finances any more and
that we are expecting another warning from the International
Monetary Fund in the near future?
If there have been other transactions as dubious, as obscure,
as appalling as this one, because it serves the friends of the
Liberal Party, of the Conservative Party, in fact, the old
Canadian parties, I understand why things are going badly in
Canada. I understand why government coffers are being drained
at an alarming rate and why the Minister of Finance is forced to
take unpopular actions that affect the most powerless among
Quebecers and Canadians, in order to serve the friends of the
party, in the light of the millions of dollars that were in there,
that were concealed there. Since there is no political will to get
right to the bottom of that deal in order to avoid others in the
future, I understand why Liberals tend to be more drastic than
Tories used to be.
Ever since the Minister of Transport introduced Bill C-22, the
Bloc Quebecois has been criticizing the fact that no public
inquiry, no serious analysis has been made by a royal
commission of inquiry.
Every time I look at all the benefits that deal had to offer, I
keep asking myself: ``Will it be better with the bill?'' I think
perhaps it could not be better, from a certain standpoint, because
the Minister of Transport will still be able to bribe some friends
of the Liberal Party of Canada, he will still be able to use his
discretion to give his friends tens of millions of dollars, if he so
desires, to make up for a potential loss without an analysis being
made or a royal commission being established to get right to the
bottom of the deal.
I am looking at that in comparision with the decisions the
Minister of Finance made when he tabled is last budget on
February 22 and reduced the unemployment benefits and the
credits for senior citizens. Over the last few days, the Minister
of Finance seems to be suggesting that the registered retirement
savings plans could also be taxed, but family trusts are still
being maintained.
Officials were told not to give any information to members of
Parliament about the hundreds of millions that could be
concealed there. This is precisely serving the interests of those
same friends of the Liberal Party of Canada, or maybe the very
rich friends of the Conservatives. It is also serving the 2,000
Canadian millionaires who did not pay a dime in income tax last
year.
When I compare that to other decisions of the government,
such as the possibility that the Minister of Transport compensate
once more friends of the ruling party, I say it is a disgrace. The
Liberals should be ashamed of themselves, the Minister of
Finance first of all, as well as the Minister of Transport, his
accomplice.
As for the Senate amendment, like my friend said, in my view
the Senate has no value. It is not a legitimate and democratic
authority. Therefore we dismiss everything that comes out of the
Senate, good or bad.
(1700)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before moving on to the
question and comment period that should follow the speech of
the hon. member, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to
inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Bourassa-Immigration; the hon. member for Mercier-Social
program reform; the hon. member for Quebec-National
Defence; the hon. member for Red Deer-Haiti.
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi): Mr. Speaker, my colleague
just spoke on Bill C-22, the bill to cancel the privatization
project of Pearson airport. I would like him to tell us about the
millions of dollars that are being spent. It was said earlier that
perhaps the Liberal government should give these companies
thirty million dollars in compensation rather than wait for court
action where they might get more. Could the hon. member tell
me whether or not such monies are actually available, that is, if
Pearson Airport brings in that much money, how come we have
so little money to keep regional airports open, why is it that the
Minister of Transport wants to close our regional airports?
These airports mean a lot to us. In remote areas like Northern
Quebec, where air travel is the only means of transportation,
what are people going to do when they want to travel south? How
do we measure the cost? If the Val d'Or airport, for example, is
to be closed on the medium term for lack of money, why not
divert some of the money from profitable airports, like Pearson
and maybe Montreal, to bring some equity nationally and
thereby permit us to travel by air?
Maybe my colleague has an opinion on this and on the way to
make the system equitable.
6280
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Abitibi for his excellent question. I believe there is only one
possible answer to that question. For this government, like the
previous one, it is not a priority to serve the population of
Quebec and Canadians well. Its main interest is not there, as
was revealed yesterday by the Liberals' position on public
financing. The citizens of Quebec and those of Canada are not
the ones who finance those two old political parties. It is rather
the large companies, the very rich Canadian minority, and the
ones who are served first when an old federalist party comes
into office. That is crystal clear.
The logical result of public fund raising is that the first ones to
be served when a member, a government comes into office are
the citizens. Not friends who contribute several hundred
thousand dollars to the party's campaign fund but real citizens
with genuine needs. Members of parties who have adopted such
a public fund raising serve first of all those electors.
If at the outset you have a predisposition to grease the palms
of the very rich and mighty friends of the party, you are less
disposed to think first in terms of equal services from coast to
coast in Canada or, in the case of Quebec, in the regions as
opposed to the big centres. You are also less disposed to think
that way, you would rather choose to give $30 million to the
party's friends who may have lost something. We do not know if
they have lost or not because there was no inquiry. We are not
saying that they are not entitled to compensation, but that we do
not know what really happened, since there was no public
inquiry into this matter.
Thus, you decide to compensate the Liberal hacks, to
maintain the family trusts in which these same hacks invested
and still invest year after year without paying a single cent in tax
for up to 80 years. You also decide to maintain tax treaties with
16 tax havens around the world, again allowing the wealthiest,
the very large and profitable Canadian corporations to file their
profits overseas where these are free of tax and to report in
Canada their losses made overseas, for example. These are the
choices you make.
(1705)
You also choose to cut billions from the unemployment
insurance fund, simply because the unemployed are not those
who contribute to the Liberal war chest. Grassroot financing is
not enough. The Liberal Party turns to the large corporations,
their great and rich friends, for financial support. Kolber,
Bronfman and friends, these are the ones who hand out the
money because they will be served later by the Liberal Party as
well as by the Conservative Party. Thus, to me, Liberals and
Conservatives are the same: old parties which are against
democracy. They are old parties which are against grassroot
financing as they obviously showed us yesterday.
Anyway, I am not surprised by the fact that such absurd
decisions as the one to close regional airports which serve a
specific population are being taken, while, in the case of Pearson
Airport, they refuse any kind of inquiry or openness because
they are afraid of the truth.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, for the
benefit of Canadians and Quebecers who are listening to us, I
will say that my question is unsolicited. In other words this is
not, as we say back home, a planted question contrary to what
Canadians are used to seeing during Question Period when a
government member puts a question to a minister who in turn
reads the answer. We see that regularly, but this is not the case.
I appreciated the speech by the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot who, by the way, is a well-known
economist in Quebec. I do not know if his fame has reached the
riding of Stormont-Dundas which you represent so well, Mr.
Speaker, but I want to say that in Quebec the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot is renowned.
I ask him if it is true that companies who hired these lobbyists
can deduct their fees from their income tax report. Therefore, if
compensation is granted in the Pearson deal, and we do not know
if it will be, or if it is justified, which we do not know, and if the
minister deems that it is, the cost of this tax loss will have to be
added to it. I am not sure what words to use as I do not have the
same background as the member, but I would like to hear what
he has to say about this.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot has two minutes to answer the
question.
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, it is true that one was not planted.
You may be sure of that.
To answer the hon. member's question: Yes, corporations can
deduct lobbying expenses, and Jim will agree with me.
Corporations can deduct lobbying expenses, just as they can
deduct the taxes they have to pay every year. They can also
deduct the cost of hiring experts to find loopholes in the
Canadian tax system so that they can shelter hundreds of
millions and even billions of dollars every year. We do not know
the exact amount, because senior officials at the Department of
Finance have been told not to comment.
Yes, I can assure the hon. member for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans that corporations can
deduct lobbying expenses, just as they can deduct fees for
consultants and experts to help get them around the tax system
and avoid during their corporate duty every year, which
represents a loss of hundreds of millions, or even billions of
dollars to the federal treasury.
We can afford it, with our cumulative debt of $150 billion and
an annual deficit of $40 billion. Since we can afford it, that is
what happens. Instead of closing these loopholes and tightening
up the tax system, the Liberal government, and especially the
Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, prefer to keep them
and make them even bigger-to let $30 million slip through, as
we see in the case of Bill C-22-while hurting those who are
6281
hurting enough as it is, and I am referring to the unemployed, to
senior citizens who have worked hard all their lives. Above all,
they can do without the very serious threat of attacks on RRSPs
and pension plans.
This is unconscionable, immoral and obscene, and the
Liberals should be ashamed of themselves.
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak to the amendments to Bill C-22 sent to the House from the
other place.
The motion before us today is quite simply a slap in the face to
each and every taxpaying citizen who felt that the previous
government had gone too far by attempting to sell terminals 1
and 2 at Pearson airport to a group of self-interested investors in
the dying days of an endangered administration.
(1710 )
Contrary to the statements made by some of our friends in the
other place, the proposed amendments to Bill C-22 have little or
nothing to do with protecting the legitimate collective interests
of taxpaying Canadians. No, the motion before us today is about
protecting the private interests and profits of a handful of
self-interested individuals over and above the collective
interests of the unknown hard working taxpayers of the country.
As chairperson of the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Transport I can report that due process was served
when our committee conducted its thorough review of Bill C-22
last May. In addition to a clause by clause analysis of the bill, the
Standing Committee on Transport conducted hearings in order
to obtain input on the legislation from individuals directly
involved in the Pearson deal.
We heard testimony from several witnesses including
Transport Canada officials; Hession Neville and Associates, an
organization that put an unsuccessful bid on a Pearson contract;
Air Canada officials; and representatives of the Matthews
Paxport Trust, Mr. Gordon Baker and Mr. Donald Matthews. Of
course we will never forget the colourful and melodramatic
testimony of the legal counsel representing the Pearson
Development Corporation.
In addition to the hearings, the committee considered the
findings of a report on the Pearson deal submitted by Mr. Robert
Nixon to the right hon. Prime Minister. On this point it should be
noted that Mr. Nixon's report contained the following
conclusion. Maybe members of the Reform Party would be
interested in what it concluded. It stated:
To leave in place an inadequate contract, arrived at with such a flawed process
and under the shadow of possible political manipulation, is unacceptable. I
recommend to you that the contract be cancelled.
As stated in the report itself, Mr. Nixon's comments were
based on what was considered to be in the best interest of
taxpayers, the travelling public and general economic
development of the area. That statement captures the very
essence of my case against today's motion.
Some of our friends in the Tory dominated red chamber and
their friends in the Tory dominated Pearson development deal
would like us to believe that Bill C-22 is a Draconian piece of
legislation that, among other things, breaches the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights by taking
away the fundamental right of Canadians to legal recourse in the
courts. Indeed the level of romanticized fiction in that argument
is similar to that which might be found on any given day in a
cheap supermarket tabloid.
With regard to the constitutional issues surrounding the
legislation, it is worth while to examine an approach that has
been used by the Supreme Court of Canada when interpreting
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in order to put
things in their proper perspective. I am referring to the so-called
purposive approach to interpreting the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, as stated by Canadian constitutional law expert,
Peter H. Russell. He said:
The main thrust of the purposive approach to charter interpretation,
fashioned by Chief Justice Dickson in some early cases, is to inquire into the
reasons a particular right or freedom came to be valued in the history of western
civilization and thereby to identify the interests each right or freedom was
meant to protect.
I would like to focus on the latter portion of that statement
pertaining to identifying the interests each right or freedom was
meant to protect.
In most democratic societies, including our own, it is a
generally accepted principle of democracy that with some
exceptions the legitimate interests of the collective are held in
higher regard than that of individual private interests.
As I stated, however, there are exceptions to the rule: for
example, a situation of some sort of social or economic injustice
or inequity brought on by such social phenomena as racism,
sexism, poverty or any number of things that might characterize
a historical disadvantaged or disempowered minority group or
individual in our society. Under such circumstances it is
incumbent on us to ensure that the interests of the disadvantaged
or disempowered minority are not overpowered by that of the
majority. If we apply this approach to the current Bill C-22 and
its proposed amendment we can see that in fact the government
is attempting to act in a forthright manner.
6282
(1715)
In this particular instance, by cancelling the Pearson deal
through Bill C-22, the government has clearly chosen to protect
the legitimate interests of the collective taxpaying populace as
opposed to protecting the individual private interests and profits
sought by a handful of lobbyists and contractors.
I do not have any sympathy whatsoever for those lobbyists
and contractors because the deal they signed in the dying days of
the previous administration was simply not in the best interests
of the taxpaying Canadian public as a collective.
In short, I challenge any hon. member in the House to prove
that the organization this motion is designed to protect, namely
the Pearson Development Corporation, represents the interests
of a historically disadvantaged or disempowered group. Prove
it.
Are these lobbyists and contractors in a situation of
significant disadvantage such that the interests of the majority
should be over-ruled in this case? No. All members of the House
know full well that the motion before us today was created in the
interests of protecting the so-called foregone profits of a very
small but extremely privileged minority in our society. It is
simply a shameful attempt to impede the legitimate purpose of
Bill C-22 which is to cancel a dubious contract made under
dubious circumstances by a dubious administration that was not
acting in the public interest.
Let us not be fooled by the people in the other place who claim
to be fighting for the rights of Canadians. Make no mistake.
They are fighting purely for the profits of their corporate
colleagues.
In closing, I implore the members of the House to take a
purposive approach to the legislation in question in order to
properly identify which interests are most appropriate to protect
in this case. Should we be looking out for the majority of
taxpaying Canadians who stand to gain only what they deserve if
the motion before us fails, namely justice? Or should we join our
friends in the Tory dominated red chamber by giving their
colleagues in the Pearson Development Corporation a chance to
take the citizens of Canada to the cleaners on a deal Canadians
never wanted the previous government to make in the first place.
The choice is clear. This motion has no merit. Let us dispense
with it and get on with serving the legitimate interests of our
fellow Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Hamilton West, as Chairman of the Standing
Committee on Transport, of which I am vice-chairman, has used
his privilege as a member to speak in the House. I made a
number of allegations in what I said earlier, and I would
appreciate his thoughts on the following: When he told me in
committee that subpoenas had not be used to summon witnesses
to appear before a committee since 1917, did he give me the
wrong answer? Was he aware of the situation when I showed him
proof that this had been done in 1989, 1990 and 1992, for
instance, by the hon. member for Windsor, the present
government House leader?
Did he purposely answer that this procedure had not been used
since 1917 or was he trying to evade the question? Because he
knew perfectly well that if we had subpoenaed these people, we
would have had genuine answers to our questions.
I have an additional question for the hon. member. If Senator
Leo Kolber had been a Conservative, not a Liberal, would he
have agreed to be summoned to testify before the Standing
Committee on Transport?
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I would only answer my hon. friend
in an honest and straightforward fashion. Beyond that he asked
me to bring forward a process which we discussed thoroughly at
committee that he knows full well would have extended the
debate on Pearson airport for a minimum of months, maybe
years, a process that would have Canadian taxpayers watching,
being frustrated with it. It would hold back any development,
process and progress at Pearson airport.
(1720)
Canadian taxpayers want to see Pearson airport succeed. They
want it to become viable. They need that airport for economic
reasons, to sustain what we see as an important, viable piece of
infrastructure for travel across this country, to connect this
country and the world.
I would only answer my friend in the most honest,
straightforward manner.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank the member for Hamilton West. I am glad to see
someone from the government side speak that is subject to
questioning.
The analogy that the hon. member brings up is very
interesting. He said that there were some allegations or
possibility of impropriety, so it is in the best interests of
Canadians to cancel the deal and not compensate these people.
He did not say that it has been properly investigated or if
anybody really even created an improper procedure in this
whole thing.
It is like being a person associated with somebody who drops
dead. We do not know what killed the person, but we charge him
with murder because after all he was around somebody that died.
We do not even know if a murder happened, never mind whether
this person contributed to it. Yet we want to find him guilty. That
is what the government is saying in this bill: ``We think there are
some improper things and if we think there is something
improper, then by God there must be something improper,
because we know it all''. I challenge that.
6283
I would ask the hon. member if they are so anxious to cancel
this bill because it is such a bad bill, they must obviously have
something better in mind. I asked the Minister of Transport
today what he had in mind, what he was going to replace this
contract with, what he was going to do about the problems at
Pearson airport terminals 1 and 2.
The government must have something better in mind. I would
like to hear from the hon. member what will replace this bad deal
that is better?
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member's staff has
not kept him abreast with what has been going on in government
but the Minister of Transport has a national airports policy
which has been released that should be of profound interest to
this member and the Reform Party.
It takes away from the particular group that I spoke of, a very
eclectic group of lobbyists and contractors and the profitability
they might make, into a so-called Canadian airport authority,
which has representation not just from government but from the
community that it serves. It will give that opportunity to all the
citizenry, not just around that airport but around that entire
region, to have input into the process of decision making for the
airport.
Guess what? It is not a revelation. It is quite simply input by
the community. What do they need done at this airport? This is
what they need done. Who is going to pay for it? They are going
to pay for it with good old fashioned, common sense business
practices. That is something else the government stands for and
which I hear being touted by that party opposite.
On top of that I find it passing strange that we have a Reform
Party, a third party in the House who stand opposed to-or in
favour possibly of-this motion, when the motion says that we
are looking at ensuring there is an opportunity for that eclectic
group of contractors and lobbyists to strip away from the
Canadian taxpayers a potential of over $400 million. This comes
from a Reform Party, a third party that is concerned with cutting
taxes, with ensuring that the debt comes down, with ensuring
that the deficit is worked at. They stand and want to support this
motion to possibly open the door to give $400 million to these
contractors. It is incredible.
(1725 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise again to speak on Bill C-22.
Before I begin my main remarks I would like to correct a
statement made earlier in the House today by the minister. I
think the words the minister used were that the Liberals were
elected to cancel this deal. I do not think that is quite accurate. I
think they were elected to review the deal. That is what they
were saying during the campaign, not to cancel the deal but to
review it.
An hon. member: I heard the Prime Minister say that.
Review the deal and act accordingly.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Not to cancel the deal with no
regard for potential costs or the delay at Pearson airport, or due
process. Let the record be straight, that was not what the
Liberals were elected to office to do.
The decision was made to cancel a project of this magnitude
on the basis of a hurried 30-day investigation. The decision was
made to cancel a project of this magnitude, in 30 days, without
any input from the people involved.
It smacks of a knee-jerk reaction to try to show a government
in action, without due regard for the taxpayers of this country.
They are the ones who are going to end up paying the bill that we
are looking at here.
Unfortunately the solution to this problem has the potential to
cost the taxpayers some hard-earned tax dollars that will further
increase our deficit. And they are mostly wasted tax dollars
because it will do nothing to improve Pearson.
I say mostly because I believe that by going through the courts
and opening up this whole mess to the public, we will be doing
something to restore some of the trust that has been lost between
voters and all politicians. To me anything we can do to remove
the cynicism that has developed between the voter and the
politician is something at which we should seriously look. That
is what we are talking about here.
A major part of the dilemma the government is facing in the
debate is the ``trust us'' to do what is fair and reasonable behind
closed doors. The message during the campaign, the message I
was getting and I am sure many members were getting was that
the trust that had once there had been lost and needed to be
regained. We have to re-establish that trust. This bill does not do
that.
Members may or may not agree with that, but the fact there
were 205 new members elected to the House of Commons says
to me very clearly that the voters were not happy with the old
politics and wanted some changes in this place. There is no
better way to achieve that goal than to open up this process to
full disclosure. Let us review the facts that brought us to this
point.
First of all, we have a deal that was negotiated by the previous
Conservative government behind closed doors. It was signed
during the election campaign in the full knowledge that it was
going to be reviewed. It was not just a Conservative deal, it is a
deal that involved friends on both sides, Liberals and
Conservatives.
Second, we had a shady deal and now we have a shady review.
Without questioning the abilities of Mr. Nixon who was asked to
do the review, if we really believed in restoring the voters' trust
and confidence in politicians, whoever was going to do this
6284
review absolutely had to be non-partisan. It had to be done by
somebody who was completely removed from involvement in
the political arena. That was not the case here and that flawed
review did nothing to restore the trust and confidence I am
talking about.
Third, the review raises many questions about the process and
puts into question the names and reputations of many people and
firms. An implication is that perhaps the law has been broken.
In spite of this damning report this bill does nothing about
giving those involved whose names and reputations have been
put into question the opportunity to remove that cloud. Yet it
does say that in spite of this secret and perhaps unlawful deal
they will pay some compensation to these people. They are
going to give them some money, but they are going to do it
behind closed doors.
If this deal is only half as bad as the Nixon report suggested,
not one penny of taxpayers' money should be approved for
payout.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member will
certainly have the option of continuing his remarks to the
maximum of 20 minutes when this piece of business returns to
the House.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
6284
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ascertain whether
current levels of immigration are sustainable in periods of high unemployment
and slow economic growth or recession, and if it finds these levels to be
unsustainable under such circumstances the government should develop a
means of expeditiously adjusting immigration levels in response to economic
conditions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since you have just read the motion I
will not read it again. I happen to care very much about the
precise wording of the motion. It was worded as carefully as one
could in an attempt to hit the target. I would like to explain to the
House where the genesis of this motion came from.
Once every four or five years members of this House go back
to the people to seek re-election and others to seek election.
During that process we have a very healthy experience of
meeting the electors and hearing their concerns, not just by
telephone or letters but right at their front doors. That is where
they tell those seeking re-election and those seeking to be
elected for the first time exactly what the score is from the
perspective of the voter.
During the 1993 election I was dutifully electioneering in my
riding with several other candidates from other parties. At that
time we believed we were in the tail end of the recession.
Statistically it is fair to say that we were and at least in my riding
of Scarborough-Rouge River we were waiting for the economy
to spin up again.
Many of my constituents asked me about the levels of
immigration. They said if the unemployment rate is 11 per cent
now it surprises them that we are taking in more immigrants this
year than we did the year before and that the immigration levels
are increasing.
My riding is 55 per cent immigrants. It is actually an
immigrant receiving community and we are very proud of that.
It is a very healthy, vibrant community and that augments our
lives there considerably. There was a high level of intake of new
Canadians.
(1735 )
A constituent said to me that she sponsored her sister as an
immigrant last year. She was accepted recently and she is going
to come but this is a terrible time for her to come because she is
not going to find a job.
The economy is in such miserable shape around here. The
metropolitan Toronto area was hit very hard by the recession and
I do not think we have recovered the jobs that we lost four years
ago. We are down considerably by 100,000 or 200,000 jobs.
She was expressing concern about the ability of her sister to
find a job when she arrived in Scarborough and was suggesting
to me, even though she and her sisters were current clients of the
immigrant process, that maybe we did not have the timing quite
right.
That combined with many other questions put to me at the
door caused me to undertake to my constituents that I would
raise in the House the question of immigration levels when the
economy is not growing, when we have a weak economy. That is
why the issue is here. Although the economy has improved
somewhat since last year the issue is still a legitimate one.
A year later some events have overtaken the currency of that
issue. It is worth pointing out that the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration has undertaken a very comprehensive and
broad ranging consultation process with a view to establishing a
long run, a 10-year plus immigration plan for Canada that will
take us into the next millennium. That process has begun and it
is continuing. It is comprehensive. Canadians will play a
definite part in that and I am looking forward to that process
continuing.
There are a number of questions raised in the consultation but
I want to note two because they bear relevance to the subject of
debate at the moment. Page 10 of the first consultation
document it states while there may be increasing concerns about
the
6285
number of immigrants coming to Canada there is evidence to
suggest that these concerns are linked as much to issues of
unemployment and the economy as they are to issues of
diversity. That is in the government's own discussion paper.
Another question asked on page 13 is a question not unrelated
to the one we are debating here today: should immigration be
managed in response to the business cycle or only on the basis of
long term social goals?
Right there the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and
those who work with him have asked the types of questions that
are related to the motion we discuss here today.
Keep in mind that the motion addresses immigration levels in
a weak economy; high unemployment and all of the other
manifestations of a weak economy. It is clear that the issue has
been addressed. At least if it has been addressed, it may not have
been answered, but an answer is being sought from Canadians.
Let us use this debate to focus on that particular issue, the
issue of immigrations levels in a weak economy, and hopefully
make a contribution to the broader consultation now under way.
What are the issues related to this? In a weak economy some
Canadians ask, at least the ones I spoke to at the doors did, if we
are able to receive as many immigrants in a weak economy as we
are in a strong economy. Looking back over the last few years:
immigration levels in 1991, 206,000; 1992, 220,000; 1993,
245,000; and the plan for 1994 would have us receive 250,000.
There has been an increase and that increase took place at about
the same time as the recession sucked the growth out of our
economy.
If one was unemployed in Toronto or Scarborough in 1993
during the election campaign and simply took note of an
increase of 30,000 or 40,000 people in metropolitan Toronto as
immigrants, one might legitimately ask whether their arrival
will decrease one's ability to find a job. It is a legitimate
question and it is one that I do not think the government has
definitively answered. It is a question we ask here today.
(1740)
There is something else going on here while the question is
being asked and if we had 30,000 or 40,000 new Canadians in
metro Toronto and they all started looking for jobs I think the
unemployment rate would shoot through the roof, but it did not
through that period. It went up in the recession but it never did
shoot through the roof.
It is clear that the arrival of new Canadians does not per se on
a person per person basis directly cause unemployment.
Nevertheless, the question I have already acknowledged is a
legitimate one.
We can look for the answer perhaps in some economic studies
that have been done. There are some related economic studies
which show that immigrants can create just about as many jobs
as they would take as workers. The suggestion in some of these
economic studies is that there is a balance.
When immigration increases, when the people come here to
Canada to start new lives, they immediately increase the
demand for goods and services. They in effect become a part of
the marketplace that generates jobs. I suppose that particular
piece of economic news is a good one.
There was a 1991 study by the Economic Council of Canada
called Economic and Social Impacts of Immigration which
states at page 62 that immigration may influence the incomes
and job opportunities of existing residents. It also says the
impact of immigration on unemployment is almost certainly
negligible, at least over the long term. Even temporary effects
seem quite unlikely unless immigration increases very rapidly.
Immigration appeared to be increasing relatively rapidly
between 1991, 1992, 1993, but in any event it has at least
addressed the issue.
There is another statement in that same study by the
Economic Council of Canada which gives its recommendations
as an economic advisory body. It recommends that the level of
immigration be gradually increased above the average levels of
the last 25 years to reach 1 per cent of the population, that is a 1
per cent increase on a gross basis by the year 2015. These levels
would be reviewed every five years to verify that the integration
of immigrants is being successfully managed.
While Canadians gain economically in terms of per capita
income from more immigration, the gain is so small that it did
not weigh heavily in our recommendation. Nevertheless, nearly
every immigrant more than pays for himself or herself in scale
economies and in lighter future tax burdens. These are positive
things for our economy.
We note that there is hardly ever an effect on unemployment
rates. Nevertheless, at the doors in my constituency the fear was
there. It may not be a justifiable fear but Canadians are telling
me they are worried about it.
I want to assume that in the discussion here the motion I have
placed here is dealing with a period of high unemployment,
weak or no economic growth, and a level of high immigration
receipt. If you are from a community in Canada that did not have
a lot of immigrants coming to it you would not care too much
about the motion. You would not care too much about the issue
perhaps. However, this is the way my constituents have put this
to me.
6286
Research on this subject also shows two earlier studies, 1977,
1982, which tended to suggest that there were materially
recognizable costs with immigration.
(1745 )
However, those studies second guessed the methodology and
the computer models which were then called TRACE,
CANDIDE and RDX2. These are 20-year old economic models
which I understand are not used any more. Therefore the results
of those studies are certainly in question.
We leave the ascertaining of the economic impacts to the
economists. I have referred the House to Economic Council of
Canada study in 1991. There was another study done one or two
years ago by the Mackenzie Institute. I take note of it because
that particular body contributes quite a bit to public policy
development in the country. Its conclusions are not always the
conclusions that I would come to but they are a contributor.
On page 124 of the Mackenzie Institute study is a quote I want
to mention because it was written by a current member of the
House, the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound. The
assessment in that document was that the economic effects of
immigration on the welfare of resident Canadians tend to be
positive. I wanted to note as clearly as I could that overall the
immigration impacts are very positive for Canadians.
I would like to get back to what I think the focus of the House
disposition should be. I and my constituents would like the
government to ascertain whether high levels of immigration,
when the economy is weak, impact negatively on Canadians
especially in high immigrant receiving communities. I realize
that an answer might not be forthcoming quickly and
definitively but that is the issue we seek to have resolved.
If the government finds that it does have a negative impact
then it should take steps to alter the immigration levels in a way
that would nullify those impacts.
Last, I again want to recognize that the question will be
addressed in the current consultation process. I hope that it will
be done by the government, by officials in employment and
immigration and with the assistance and in consultation with
Canadians in a way which will recognize the concern that has
been expressed by my constituents and in a way which will
permit our immigration act and policies to serve Canadians in
the best possible way for the decades to come.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
speak against motion M-157 tabled by the hon. member for
Scarborough-Rouge River.
[English]
When I read the motion for the first time I thought it came
from a Reform Party MP. However, I was wrong. It comes from a
Liberal MP and I am very surprised.
[Translation]
The hon. member wants to know whether current levels of
immigration are sustainable in difficult economic times. This
motion rests on the premise that immigration interferes with
economic prosperity or undermines efforts toward economic
recovery.
It seems to me that what the hon. member from the Liberal
Party is suggesting is right along the lines of the longstanding
Reform Party immigration policy to drastically reduce the
number of immigrants admitted to Canada. The unemployment
rate is not tied to the number of immigrants Canada welcomes.
The economic crisis and resulting unemployment have much
deeper causes. Let me quote figures for a few years. In 1991,
while the unemployment rate in Canada was 10.3 per cent,
having soared a full two points in one year, immigration levels
were decreased by 7,813. On the other hand, from 1992 to 1993,
while the average rate of unemployment remained more or less
the same and extremely high in Canada, immigration levels
were increased by 25,023.
(1750)
As the hon. member indicated, the unemployment rate is
dropping slightly these days. There certainly does not seems to
have been any correlation between the levels of unemployment
and immigration for a very long time. As a matter of fact, it
should be pointed out that British Columbia is currently the
province with the highest growth rate in Canada. British
Columbia welcomes the highest number of immigrants to
Canada in proportion to its population.
Mr. Speaker, in Vancouver last July, I saw the vitality and
dynamism injected by ethnic communities and new arrivals in
that province's economy. I noted in particular the dynamism and
contribution of the Asian community. I want to pay tribute to
this very dynamic and lively community that has settled in
Canada, particularly in Vancouver and British Columbia.
The hon. member quotes figures from studies by the
Economic Council of Canada which, in fact, contradict what he
is trying to prove today in this House. Many Canadians fear that
too many refugees and immigrants are dependent on social
assistance. But, according to the statistics, the truth is that
immigrants, including refugees, rely less on social assistance
and unemployment insurance than native-born Canadians.
So far, immigrants have brought more to Canada than they
received by creating jobs, increasing the demand for consumer
goods and housing and paying taxes.drastically
6287
These facts have been confirmed in a recent study by Dr.
Morton Beiser, a professor at the University of Toronto. He
showed that only 8 per cent of the 1,300 refugees from
Southeast Asia who were interviewed did not work in 1991,
when Canada's unemployment rate rose to 10.3 per cent. One
out of five had set up their own business. The study also found
that 4.5 per cent of refugees collected welfare benefits
compared with 7 per cent of all Canadians. My colleagues from
the Reform Party should keep this in mind.
In any case, the member for Scarborough-Rouge River
should not be too concerned, because Canada will not take in the
250,000 immigrants planned for 1994. Indeed, in the first half of
this year, far fewer immigrants have come to this country than in
the same period in 1993. Probably the total figure will not
exceed 200,000 for 1994. The Liberal Party's program would
increase immigration by 1 per cent a year, but the 250,000
immigrants that Canada should receive in 1994 are only 0.86 per
cent of Canada's population.
We look forward to the document on immigration levels for
the coming years which the minister is to table before November
1. At that time, the minister should provide us with all the
studies and results of the consultations carried on in recent
months.
I think that the Standing Committee on Immigration and
Citizenship could then conduct a thorough study of this issue.
(1755)
[English]
Any immigration policy must in the first place consider
demographic factors. Currently most considerations are based
on economics. One of the factors that has this last year justified
higher immigration levels is the increasing preoccupation of
many Canadians regarding the demographic decline in Canada
for the coming years.
The projections indicate that if immigration numbers and
birth rates do not increase then Canadians will be faced with a
reduction in their numbers. Studies show that post-industrial
nations will have a birth rate between 1.4 and 1.7 per cent.
However, a rate of 2.1 per cent is necessary only to maintain the
current population numbers. This difference must consequently
be adjusted by the immigration policy.
In addition we must take into consideration the ages of the
Canadian population. Young immigrants are needed to work and
finance our social security system.
Finally, there is an increasing number of countries that find
themselves in conflict situations. There are more than 100
million refugees in the world. Canada has a moral duty to do its
share in solving this problem by welcoming refugees into our
country.
[Translation]
The motion tabled by the hon. member for
Scarborough-Rouge River is totally opposed to his own party's
policies, the Liberal Party of Canada, as they are worded in that
red book which the Prime Minister and the members opposite
often quote as though it was the Bible. As I said, increasing
immigration levels so as to reach one per cent of the Canadian
population is a promise made in that red book.
The hon. member's motion is a barely veiled and disguised
criticism of his party's policy. He told us that immigrants
account for 55 per cent of the population in his riding of
Scarborough-Rouge River. I think those people will not be
very proud of their member of Parliament today, since he is
squarely in favour of lowering immigration levels. In any case,
let me tell you that, as a member of Parliament who came here as
an immigrant, I am not proud of the member's motion. For all
these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois opposes the motion.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to address this reasonable motion. It is only a shame
that this motion did not originate with the government. It seems
that the government has a great deal to learn, at least as far as
immigration policy is concerned, from its own backbenchers
and especially from my hon. colleague, the author of this
motion.
The fact that a motion like this even requires debate and is not
already government policy is a reflection of the power that
special interests have exercised and continue to exercise on
government policy.
We currently have an immigration policy as outlined in the
Liberal red book that is literally based on nothing. This
government is allowing nearly 1 per cent of the population to
come into the country this year as immigrants; 250,000
immigrants. At the same time Canada is experiencing a level of
unemployment that is denying jobs to 1.5 million people.
The government can offer no rationale for this level of
immigration. It is not derived from economic research, since the
experts are agreed that immigration does not add to the wealth of
Canada. Over the long term economic forecasts suggest that our
current levels will actually lower the average income of all
Canadians. There is no evidence that immigrants create more
jobs than they take. At best the job and wealth creating effects of
immigration are neutral.
There are data to back up arguments for restricting
immigration during times of recession. There are data that
clearly suggest that immigration should be tied to the economy.
Moreover, it is only common sense that immigration should
serve one primary role, to supplement our labour force to
strengthen the economy and contribute to Canada's economic
growth. That is not the agenda of this government at present and
that is not the agenda of the immigration industry.
6288
(1800)
There is no question that immigration could be made to work
in the interests of the economy and the interests of Canadians.
There is a simple recipe for success. That recipe is to cut the
numbers of immigrants, especially during hard times such as the
one that we are currently facing and ensure that immigrants who
come into Canada are chosen for their ability to quickly and
successfully integrate into the economy and to make an
immediate contribution.
The way that we can do that is to ensure that the bulk of
immigrants come in under the point system. Currently however
only 15 per cent of immigrants come in this way. The rest are
family class and refugees.
Over the summer a poll was conducted by the immigration
association. One of the questions that was put to over 1,000
people across the country is the following: ``Would you approve
or disapprove of a proposal to place restrictions on the entry of
immigrants who may compete with unemployed Canadians
during times of high unemployment in the country?'' The
answer to that question was an overwhelming yes. Canadians
would approve of restricting immigration levels if it was
determined that the job market could not accommodate
newcomers. Sixty-seven per cent of Canadians approved. In
political terms that is an overwhelming majority.
That is not the only poll around. Earlier in the year the
department of immigration commissioned the EKOS polling
firm to survey Canadians on their feelings toward immigration
policy. In this poll a majority of Canadians surveyed said that
there were too many immigrants coming into Canada, period.
That is very revealing.
Canadians have always been among the most accepting
people on earth. We have welcomed newcomers and believed
that there was a place in Canada for them where they could
contribute, where they could stake out a place and become
productive members of society.
Now the majority are saying: ``Let's tighten up. Let's shut the
doors'', and many of them are immigrants themselves. Frankly
there is little wonder that this sort of reaction is occurring.
Officials from EKOS have told me that there is a direct
correlation between the state of the economy and the desire of
Canadians to limit immigration.
They also inform me that this level of discontent with
immigration levels was unprecedented. Some spin doctors call
the results of the EKOS poll intolerance. It is nothing of the sort.
It is a logical reaction to a strain on Canada's economy and that
strain while apparently unnoticed by officials in the department
of immigration and by the minister himself is being felt by
Canadians who are on the streets competing for jobs.
Canadians it seems have again demonstrated that they know
more about the consequences of policy than do the
policymakers. What Canadians want is an immigration policy
that works for them. Canadians are not intolerant.
This government and those in the immigration industry
should bear in mind that when they call those who are opposed to
current levels of immigration intolerant that they are indicating
a sizeable majority of the population. Are we to believe that the
majority of Canadians are intolerant? Absolutely not. They
simply want change. They simply want an immigration policy
that makes sense. They want an immigration policy that first and
foremost ties immigration levels to the state of the economy in a
real way, in a substantial way. Immigration can work in the
interest of the economy.
Tying immigration to the state of the economy would be so
simple and the benefits would be immediate and would be
profound.
This minister and this government refuse to consider it. This
minister and this government are at the beck and call of a small
group of immigration lawyers, immigration and refugee
advocates and government funded ethnic leaders who have a
monetary stake in ensuring that immigration levels are
maintained at the current level or even raised. If anyone doubts
that the immigration industry has the ear of the current minister,
they need only look at this minister's appointment to the
Immigration and Refugee Board. That will give a clear picture
of who is calling the shots.
(1805)
It is time to take immigration back from special interests. It is
time to put the direction of immigration policy into the hands of
Canadians. They should be consulted. It is time to do precisely
what this motion demands. It is unfortunate that it is not a
votable motion. It only makes sense. I surely hope that this
minister listens to what the Reform Party along with the
majority of Canadians have been calling for for some time.
I hope the minister will look at the intent of the motion and
recognize that it reflects Reform Party policy and the will of the
majority of Canadians. I hope this minister does what is right
and reduces immigration levels until Canada pulls itself out of
this recession. I hope this minister does what is good for Canada.
I am afraid he has not done this so far.
I applaud my hon. colleague for his common sense and for the
courage to table a motion that flies in the face of policies that his
own party has generated up until now.
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, the
motion before us today gives me an opportunity to outline for
the hon. member some of the many initiatives this government is
involved in to help newcomers to Canada settle in this country
and quickly become effective, contributing Canadians and not a
drain on our economy.
6289
I wish to emphasize the importance of our settlement
programs within this equation which assist immigrants
integrating into Canadian society quickly.
People who come to this country are not set adrift once they
arrive. They do not have to fend for themselves in a strange
country. Immigrants long ago had few resources available to
them but today we realize that providing initial assistance can
quickly translate into independence for the newcomer to this
country.
[Translation]
The Department of Citizenship and Immigration is involved
in a series of joint projects with non-governmental
organizations, centres for social services and other levels of
government. For instance, we are involved in co-operative
enterprises through our Immigrant Settlement and Adaptation
Program and our Settlement Language Training Program.
In 1992, for instance, the federal government provided a total
of $277,000 in funding for projects to promote immigrant
settlement, and we know that is money well spent.
[English]
The reception services point the newcomers to other
settlement and integration programs we have in place and by
promoting the many settlement services offered by governments
and community organizations we acquaint newcomers with the
programs they can tap into as they integrate into Canada.
According to our reports this has eased the anxieties of many
newcomers about the problems of successfully settling here.
[Translation]
These programs are not frills but an investment that is vital to
the well-being of new immigrants. We see them as more than
just projects. These programs are a way to work together with
people who are deeply committed to the integration of
immigrants in our society.
I repeat, these projects are an investment that is vital to the
well-being of new immigrants in this country. By working with
community organizations across the country, we manage to
involve all immigrants in every aspect of Canadian life.
This kind of work is essential to help people who are often
very vulnerable. It is money well spent, because this is a
hands-on way to give people support and help them become
independent. We have been very successful with these programs
in Quebec, where I know the situation very well, and across
Canada. Most refugees who participated in our settlement
programs have managed to integrate remarkably well into their
new communities in Quebec and across Canada.
[English]
It is the programs that help us build a multicultural society.
The motion before us implies that immigrants have a difficult
time adapting to Canada and hence they are a drag on our
society. I would suggest otherwise. I would suggest that our
settlement programs are doing their job. They are helping new
people adapt and integrate into a complex and dynamic country.
In so doing they are helping to build and maintain a vibrant
society that the United Nations told us not once but twice was
the envy of the world.
Throughout our history immigration and nation building have
gone hand in hand. Immigration has helped us to define a vision
of a tolerant, caring and generous society. Today our
immigration policy reflects these very ideals. To adopt the
motion before us would diminish our success in immigration
and refugee matters.
Canada is also a respected world leader because we offer new
life for refugees. In fact international agencies rank Canada's
refugee program among the most generous in the world. Our per
capita acceptance of refugees places us at the top of the list.
My riding of Saint-Denis is made up of refugees and
immigrants. Most are hard working and most contribute
socially, economically and culturally to my riding and to the
country. We have talked a lot about studies in the Chamber. A
study was done by the Council for Cultural Communities and
Immigration of Quebec, of which I had the honour to be
vice-president. It was proven that in a very short period, in fact
20 weeks, most refugees or immigrants had found one job and
sometimes had found two. They are working and contributing
economically to the betterment of our society, to the betterment
of our economy.
They do not, as some say, steal our jobs. They create jobs.
They employ people. The hon. member for
Scarborough-Rouge River cited certain studies that said
immigration impacts were very positive.
We have examples in the Chamber. We have examples of
Canadians or children of immigrants who have contributed
economically, socially, culturally and even politically to
Canada. I would like the hon. member and the Chamber to take
those facts into consideration.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the initial part of
the intervention of the hon. member for Saint-Denis.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Through this
period of business there are no questions or comments. Unless I
am mistaken, I would like to remind members they must be in
their seats to be recognized by the Chair.
There being no further members rising for debate and the
motion not being designated as a votable item, the time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper pursuant
to Standing Order 96(1).
6290
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall I suspend the sitting
of the House to either 6.30 or until the members who are to take
part in the adjournment debate are present?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.13 p.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 6.27 p.m.
_____________________________________________
6290
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, on June 16, I
asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question
regarding the fact that immigration officers were requiring from
refugees whose status has been recognized by the Immigration
and Refugee Board a passport from their country of origin. If
these refugees could not produce a passport, they were asked to
contact their embassy or consulate to apply for one in order for
the authorities to review their application for permanent
resident status. This practice varies depending on the
immigration office and the rules are applied in a totally arbitrary
fashion.
This requirement can jeopardize the safety of those people
and that of their families in their country of origin. It is
sometimes very difficult if not impossible for a refugee to obtain
such documents. I hope to get a complete and adequate answer
regarding that issue today.
I also take this opportunity to denounce the setting up of the
claims processing centre in Vegreville, Alberta, which is a total
flop. The decision made by the Conservatives and confirmed by
the Liberals to centralize the processing of claims far from the
users and the immigrants was irrational. Things started off on
the wrong foot and the centre was immediately overwhelmed by
the massive number of claims to process. Delays are very long.
People cannot get information on their files when they phone the
information centres set up for that purpose. Since May, the
Vegreville centre has literally never had control of the situation.
Files keep accumulating and the delays due to the insufficient
number of employees processing those claims is unjustified.
I learned that thousands of files which cannot be processed in
Vegreville will be returned to local centres. These files are
returned precisely in those centres where staff cutbacks were
made, since it was believed that it would be more efficient to
centralize the whole process in Vegreville. Now it is the local
centres which will not be able to keep up with the demand. I
denounce the unjustified staff reductions at the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration.
In this regard, I must mention the intolerable situation of
thousands of people in the Montreal area who try to contact their
immigration department by dialing 496-1010. This number is
the only one for answering all immigration questions, and it is
always busy. In July alone, there were 126,000 calls to
496-1010. There were exactly six officials there to answer the
phone. Officially, there should be 15, but in fact, there are never
more than nine employees. Service to the public is woefully
inadequate.
I also want to denounce another situation which clearly shows
that the minister has lost control of the immigration centres.
During the first week in September, Montreal had a list with the
names of over 2,000 people who were waiting to receive kits by
mail.
I hope that the minister will take concrete action soon to
improve this terrible situation.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, in
order to become a permanent resident of Canada, refugees must
be able to prove their identity. This is necessary to protect
Canada from persons who may have committed criminal acts or
human rights violations in their own country and who should not
be given permanent residence and eventually Canadian
citizenship.
It is also necessary to establish a refugee's identity in order to
clarify a refugee's relationship with family members. In order to
prove their identity, refugees are asked to present a passport,
even an expired one, a valid travel document or a satisfactory
identity document.
Refugees who are unwilling or unable to apply for a passport
from their country may therefore obtain permanent residence by
presenting a travel document other than a passport or an identity
document.
In some cases where none of these documents are available
permanent residency may be granted on humanitarian grounds if
it is unlikely that the person presents a criminal or security
concern.
In all cases, however, every effort is made with the individual
concerned, through community and support groups, to help
them produce acceptable evidence of identity for the purpose of
applying for permanent residence.
6291
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, in a
question I asked in this House on May 25, I mentioned a warning
given to the minister in a communications strategy paper whose
contents were leaked-there have been other leaks since. This
paper referred to ``UI cuts seen by the population as evidence
that the government wants to fight the deficit on the backs of the
poor''.
My question was this: ``Under the circumstances, will the
minister tell us if the delay in tabling his action plan is the result
of a split among cabinet ministers regarding what is at stake?''
That was on May 25. This question is still relevant today
because, since May 25, we have learned that the minister's
action plan, following which a bill will be drafted and action
will be taken, has been postponed until the spring and perhaps
until the fall. It will be a discussion paper on which Canadians
and Quebecers will be consulted.
The question I asked pointed out that the delay in tabling the
action plan was no doubt the result of a split among cabinet
ministers. This question is still relevant and I would say that it is
even more relevant today. We must keep in mind that the only
thing the government has done since the election to help the
needy is to cut access and UI benefits except for a small number
of cases which, as the minister reminded us today, had positive
results.
(1835)
But for one thousand or so recipients to get enhanced
protection at 60 per cent, all other claimants will see their UI
benefit rate reduced to 55 per cent. More importantly, there is all
those who will no longer qualify for UI, those who will be
entitled to fewer weeks of benefits, which means more families
and single parents ending up on welfare and increased poverty
for children.
We could read in the papers this morning that in Canada, one
child out of five is poor and their numbers have increased
dramatically since 1989.
I repeat forcefully and will continue to repeat it as long as it
takes: apart from talking -it bursts with generous,
compassionate words- all the government actually did was to
make matters worse on the whole for families and individuals in
need.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I
have paid attention to the hon. member's comments and I can
assure her that the expenditures that will take place to engage
Canadians in consultations will be expenditures that are
necessary to engage them in what we as a government feel is an
important dialogue.
There is great support throughout the land for the social
security review. People understand that the present programs,
although they have served us well in the past and have given us
the security we need, are no longer valid for the contemporary
reality.
We are going to use this review to engage Canadians. It is not
just here in Parliament but it will be in town hall meetings
throughout the country. It will be with the parliamentary
standing committee. It will be the type of consultation that this
country really has not seen to date.
The review is necessary. Canadians need change. We need to
give our young people the tools required to compete in a very
globally competitive society. We need to adjust our programs to
take into consideration the changing configurations of the
Canadian economy, the change in our families, the change in our
incomes. All the changes that have occurred need to be
addressed in a very serious manner.
It is for this reason that the government had the courage to
engage in a dialogue with Canadians. We are sure that
Canadians, like the hon. member, will be a very effective partner
in bringing about positive change to the lives of Canadians.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec): Mr. Speaker, following
the release of the report of the Department of Defence Advisory
Council on Women in the Canadian Armed Forces, the media
reported that the department had taken specific measures to
combat sexual harassment. On May 30, I rose in the House to ask
the minister what these measures were and whether there had
been an evaluation of the new complaint process.
I have yet to receive a clear and substantial reply from the
minister, who had promised something to that effect.
Harassment is a problem that affects women throughout the
workplace, especially in cases where women constitute a very
small minority. I think everyone will agree that the Department
of National Defence still fits that category.
All studies have shown that the effects of sexual harassment
are many and varied. They may lead to physical discomfort
(headaches, fatigue), personal and family problems or problems
directly related to the job (unfair evaluation, poor references
and, in extreme cases, resignation or release from employment).
Linda Geller-Schwarz, who compiled information on sexual
harassment in the workplace for the Women's Bureau, Human
Resources Development Canada, wrote:
Harassment is no joke. It upsets the life of the victim, threatens her
livelihood, is detrimental to the career of the harasser and poisons the
atmosphere at work.
In other words, in the workplace, the emotional and financial
cost is often huge for all concerned.
6292
(1840)
I realize the Minister of National Defence intends to take
action, and I commend him for it. However, I would appreciate it
if he would tell the House how he intends to rid his organization
of the social poison of sexual harassment in the workplace. I
would also ask the minister whether the main victims of
harassment, his female employees, have been or will be asked to
participate in the evaluation of measures taken to deal with a
problem that concerns them directly.
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me the
opportunity to address this important issue and to respond to her
question once again.
On June 20, I tabled in this House on behalf of the Minister of
National Defence a series of documents describing the measures
taken by the Department of National Defence to address the
issue of harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Changes have been made to ensure that DND's commitment
to eliminating harassment is reflected in our programs and
policy. Minor changes to the Canadian forces administrative
orders that include the concept of zero tolerance are embedded
in this policy.
The goal of the policy is simply the elimination and
prevention of harassment. Every member has the right to work
in an environment that is harassment free and to have any
complaint of harassment dealt with in an expeditious, impartial
and sensitive manner without fear of retaliation, and that is very
important to add.
Our goal is to prevent and eliminate harassment in the
workplace and this will be achieved by this policy and by
educating and training members on harassment issues, policies
and procedures.
Specifically, the new policies include revised complaint
reporting procedures, the designation of harassment advisers, a
DND harassment co-ordination office, a monitoring system to
track the incidence of harassment and a comprehensive
education and training program.
Harassment education and training for all members at the unit
and base level is mandatory. The new policy is in the process of
being printed and will be published in the upcoming months.
Once again I thank the member for allowing me the
opportunity to stress the fact that the Department of National
Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces remain committed to
the implementation of a zero tolerance policy on harassment.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I am here today
simply because so many Canadians are asking the same question
and are demanding an answer, not an answer that we can come
up with in the months to come, but an answer that we need right
now because the decisions are being made right now.
For Canada to think that we have the resources or the ability to
be the 911 emergency for the world, we are far beyond that.
The minister would agree that there are many hot spots in this
world, that there are many that can explode tonight, tomorrow,
next week, next month, and we have to establish some criteria
that we are going to follow when we make foreign affairs
decisions, particularly in the area of peacekeeping.
We need to look at things like the economic implications, the
humanitarian reasons. They are good reasons but then every
single place would have these same reasons. We have to come up
with a set of fixed criteria. We have to look at the geographical
relationship. The people who are closest should be the ones who
can help the best.
We have the OAS which should definitely have been more
involved in the Haiti situation. The African states should have
been more involved in Rwanda. We have to look at the effect on
international stability. We have to look at the media
relationships-should we always be driven by CNN and
Newsworld? We have to ask those questions.
Canadian people want to know what it is going to cost. How
much is this going to cost? How much money are we going to
budget to handle all of these emergencies? Again, that all comes
into criteria.
We have to look at the resources that we have and of course we
have to ask ourselves what our commitments are. We look at the
whole military situation and see an awful lot of generals but we
are certainly running out of front line troops. We are expecting
our men and women in the forces to do so many things and they
are not able to be stretched any further.
We hear talk about the equipment not being adequate. We get
letters from parents who have lost a loved one because they felt
our ability to deliver was inadequate.
We have to ask, what are these resources? How far will they
go? We have to have a plan. We cannot just trust politicians that
say: ``We will send them and we will let you know what we hope
to accomplish after''. We must know, we must ask questions. If
my son or daughter was going I would want to know why they
were going, what they are going to accomplish and how it is
going to help Canada. For how long are they going?
The closest thing I have seen on how long we are going to be
Haiti was when RCMP Chief Superintendent Pouliot said
yesterday on ``Canada AM'' that we are going to be there for
seven to ten years to train the police forces.
6293
We need to know the criteria, the costs, the resources that will
be expended and of course the plan and how long we are going to
be there.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's
question and intervention, I have taken the liberty to note the
first interview given by Chief Superintendent Neil Pouliot in his
capacity as commissioner of the United Nations civilian police
contingency in Haiti.
Commissioner Pouliot has clearly indicated that Canada's
commitment in Haiti has been set for approximately 18 months,
that is until the inauguration of Haiti's next president which is
slated for February 1986.
He has also said, and this became the basis for the member's
question in the House today and his intervention now, is that he
thought Haiti might need eight to ten years before its police
force reforms were fully implemented. This comment made in
his capacity as UN commissioner referred to the need for a
complete change of attitudes and the time needed for all ranks of
the future 5,000 strong force to assimilate the concepts of a
modern police force.
He certainly did not imply that Canada has committed itself
for that length of time. That is certainly not our intention.
Canada has pledged to assist Haiti in the area of police reform
through our participation in the United Nations Mission in Haiti.
For this purpose we have sought 100 volunteers who will be
deployed in the weeks or months ahead once the Security
Council has authorized the United Nations Mission in Haiti.
The cost of this participation has been estimated at $12.8
million for the 18-month period I have just mentioned. This is
what the member was asking. CIDA will cover those costs.
The task of the RCMP officers will be to monitor the
behaviour of the new Haitian police, accompany them on their
daily rounds and give them on-the-street training. The RCMP
will not take official duty. They are there to train, not to do the
policing themselves.
We do not know yet how long such monitoring will be
required and if, after a certain lapse of time, all of the 100
Mounties will be needed. Once a formal training program has
begun it is quite possible that smaller numbers will be required.
I thank the hon. member for raising this. He has made
excellent interventions in the standing committee on foreign
affairs and in the joint committee reviewing foreign policy. I
know he views this issue with great interest and importance.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.48 p.m.)