Debates of Feb. 10th, 1994

Supply

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would answer the question. I want to emphasize that my riding is indeed St. Boniface. I quite agree that many more people spoke French in Manitoba a century ago. Unfortunately, there has been a large drop. People still speak French in Manitoba, even though only a small number really care about the language and culture and have deep feelings towards this language and culture.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

I would like to add that where I come from, and I do not say it in an unkind way because I am not a nasty person, we are trying not only to keep what we have and to improve it but we also want to try to understand others and to develop ways of working and living together to make everyone's life better. For us, that is very important.

I drew attention in the House this week to a big Voyageur Festival we were having and I invited all my colleagues to come and see how things were in our part of the country. I would be really glad to see you because we hear people speaking French, we have native people, we even have people from all over the world. Frankly, it is wonderful. Tomorrow night, I will be with francophones from France and francophones from Manitoba, because we still have people who speak French.

I want to go back to the comment regarding what is going very well in Manitoba. I think the hon. member was listening, but he was not paying attention as closely as he should have because I gave an example of something which was not going well. I said that there are problems. If the hon. member thinks there are no problems, whether we refer to Quebec, Manitoba or another province, then I honestly think that his vision must be blurred.

There are problems everywhere. And we are here to solve those problems. I recognize that what we are doing here is very important. I recognize that everybody wants to reduce spending. If this is what you want to do, and I believe it is, fine. But we also want to do it, and the Reform Party wants to do it as well. However, what I said was that there is already a committee where this can be done.

The chairperson of that committee will be a Bloc Quebecois member. Do we have a majority? I think we do, but you are not going to tell me that because we have a majority we are not going to listen to common sense, even if it comes from a member of another party. If that was the case, it would not work at all.

The hon. member might want to reconsider what he said, because he is suggesting that we, Liberals, do not have people who can sit on this committee, listen to a proposal which makes sense, and say "yes, this is a good idea". I want to assure the hon. member that we do have such people. In fact, we have a lot of talented men and women who are willing to work for you. They want to create jobs and cut non-essential government spending, and they also want to make our country better for everyone.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleagues did mention several times during this debate that the special committee would be a committee with accrued powers.

As the Auditor General himself keeps telling the government year after year: "I do not have access to all the information". This is something the government has to understand. This is something the Auditor General himself is saying. In his report,

he did say that the use of government aircraft cost us $50 million, including $25 million to transport ministers, but he also said that he did not have the tools to examine these expenditures. He had the same problems with the information about the expenditures of the Royal Canadian Mountain Police versus transfers to the provinces.

So, more information, that is what we want the committee to have in order to consider the expenditures item by item. Give your committee all the information available about the expenditures.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

I am glad to be so popular with my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois. I understand what my colleague is saying, I am not the government, but I do understand what he is saying, and I can assure him that the government understands it as well. You are telling us that the Auditor General needs more information.

You want me and everyone listening tonight to believe that the existing committee does not have the authority to give to the Auditor General all the information he needs. Well, I want my colleague to know that it is possible, the existing committee can do just about anything it wants. The question is will the Bloc allow the committee to do it? I do not have the answer to that.

We can give the Auditor General exactly what he wants. We can give him all the information he needs, whenever we want to. There is nothing magic to it; it is possible, now-

The previous government did not want to do it, but we have a new government that wants to help.

[Benoît Tremblay, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a slight exaggeration. We had an experienced and highly respected person, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, chair the public accounts committee for years. He worked tirelessly, given the powers he had. The same powers that the committee now has. And what results did we see?

For years, Liberals on the public accounts committee wanted to know everything and to have the same powers as others. And what did they do with the powers they had? They were unable to get the information they wanted or to force ministers or senior officials to testify. Mr. Speaker, the public accounts committee has a great deal less power than the Auditor General and you misled the public by saying otherwise-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. Would the hon. member kindly address his remarks to the Chair. The parliamentary secretary has 45 seconds remaining to respond.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have never misled anyone. Sir, you have some nerve making this kind of comment! It was the previous government that did not want to satisfy the needs of members of this committee. I have clearly stated that this government is open-minded. We are prepared to co-operate with you if you are willing to work with us, for all Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker]

As there are 20 seconds remaining, I recognize the hon. member for Terrebonne.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote two sentences from the red book and then you can fulfil your duties. "Cynicism about public institutions, governments, politicians and the political process is at an all-time high". There are 15 seconds remianing. "Therefore, the government is proposing to-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17) proceedings on the motion have expired.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the other side is obviously anxious and interested to hear what we have to say; that speeds things up.

It is important to wonder about the basic role of the Canadian parliamentary system. In the House, various procedures allow the Opposition members to enquire about government activities. Among these, the Question Period remains a first-rate mean to discover and recognize the true position of the government on current issues.

Therefore, when the government apparently does not wish to answer, we can eventually resort to what is commonly known as the "late show", as you said it yourself, Mr. Speaker, to force the government to act more responsibly and to answer our questions in the best interest of Canadians. That is where we are at now, and I urge the government to give clear answers to the questions of the opposition.

I asked the Minister of National Defence about an incident involving an helicopter of the Canadian Armed Forces and Mohawks in Kanesatake and I got more comments and questions than answers. Opposition members are entitled to ask about the origin of the distress signal detected by Canadian Armed Forces. That signal caused the incident on January 21 and as long as the public does not know where that signal came from, doubts will continue to linger in the mind of all Canadians and Quebecers.

The matter is not closed simply because this government tried to cover it up through a joint statement of National Defence and the Mohawks. On the contrary, one can speculate about the true reasons why the government tries to downplay and ignore the

incident. Maybe this government needs to be reminded that something did happen on January 21.

Why was a distress signal detected in the Kanesatake reserve? If that signal was not used in a real distress situation, why was it sent? Who sent it and why? What kind of device can send this distress signal? Exactly where dit it come from? Was it an act of provocation, or rather a mistake made by the owner of a state-of-art device who accidently sent such a signal? Why Kanesatake?

Those are the kind of questions for which the government refused to give us the information we are entitled to. This incident sets a precedent that can have serious consequences for the population in general.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Excuse me. Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. I recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has discussed this issue at length in the House. We have been open and forthcoming about the incident. There is no mystery and there is no doubt.

As the minister stated, a signal from an emergency locator transmitter, ELT, was detected on January 21 by a Hercules aircraft during a routine flight. Canadian forces policy dictates that search and rescue, SAR activity, be initiated whenever an ELT transmitter emission is detected because such emissions can indicate the possibility of danger to human life or property.

A Labrador helicopter was dispatched to assist the Hercules in searching for a possible distress situation. From the air members of the SAR team were able to identify the general area. The helicopter then set down in the area and crew members set out to further localize the source with hand held equipment.

Before the source of the signal could be identified, crew members were approached by an individual. He stated that shots had been fired at the aircraft and that they should leave the area. Comments were advisory and did not convey any threat. The air crew did not hear any shots being fired nor did they detect the presence of weapons. Let me reiterate that there is no physical evidence that shots were fired at the SAR helicopter and reports that bullet holes were found in the helicopter are absolutely false.

There were never any reports of an aircraft going down in the area, nor was there any visible evidence of a possible distress situation. With this in mind the air crew was correct in its decision to avoid the unnecessary endangerment of personnel by leaving the area. The ELT stopped transmitting the following day.

Chief Peltier and the Minister of National Defence have discussed this issue to their mutual satisfaction. There is no dispute over what is Canadian airspace and there is no dispute that the Canadian forces will continue to use airspace in the conduct of legitimate defence and search and rescue activities.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on January 21 I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs several questions regarding his government's position on the violation of human rights in Mexico.

At the time, the Minister of Foreign Affairs answered that his government would listen to suggestions and discuss the matter with the Mexican authorities.

We were surprised at the minister's comments. When one realizes that Canada has a long tradition of defending democracy and human rights, the government's silence was cause for concern. Considering also that the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade publicly announced there was no connection between our trade agreements with Mexico and respect for human rights in that country, we started asking some serious questions. On the other hand, the Secretary of State responsible for Africa and Latin America made it clear that Canada was always concerned about human rights issues among its trading partners.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment intervened on January 24 to establish clearly a link between our trade agreements and environmental protection. Are we to understand that the government sees human rights as being less important than the environment?

Quebecers and Canadians want to know once and for all whether Canada sees a link between respect for human rights and the signing of trade agreements and establishing close trading relationships.

If the answer is yes, why was the government not more energetic in its representations to the Mexican government following the brutal repression of the people of Chiapas, shortly after NAFTA was signed? And how do we justify the privileged business relationship Canada has with China, although human rights are still being violated in that country?

If, on the other hand, the new government does not see a direct link between respect for human rights and its trading relationships, how does it justify Canada's retaliatory measures against Haiti, for instance? Quebecers and Canadians want to know what the present government's position is and they want that

position to be consistent. How can we explain the fact that the government has a double standard?

Canada and Quebec enjoy an excellent reputation for development assistance and respect for democracy and human rights. The Bloc Quebecois also feels that the resulting economic space and reciprocal trade are very important for our economy. Finally, we ask the government to clearly establish consistent criteria for all these countries tp be applied consistently to problems concerning human rights and democracy.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the hon. member for Laval-Est that the Government of Canada remains concerned about the conflict in Chiapas State of Mexico in early January, particularly the loss of life and allegations of human rights abuses.

We have conveyed these concerns to the Mexican government, both through our ambassador, David Winfield, in Mexico and through the Mexican ambassador here in Ottawa, Sandra Fuentes-Berain.

The Government of Canada is encouraging the Mexican government to continue the open and conciliatory approach it has taken since the second week of the crisis to address the situation in Chiapas, including the following important steps: the appointment of Manuel Camacho, the former foreign minister and former mayor of Mexico City as the chief conciliator for Chiapas; the appointment of Dr. Jorge Carpizo, the former President of Mexico's human rights commission as the new interior minister; the involvement of Bishop Samuel Ruiz in negotiations to resolve the situation in Chiapas; the ceasefire; the meetings of President Salinas with indigenous groups in Chiapas; the amnesty offered to the Zapatistas by President Salinas, which was ratified by the Mexican Congress; and the appointment of an ombudsman responsible for human rights in Mexico.

The Government of Canada trusts that the Government of Mexico will address and resolve the fundamental underlying causes of the conflict in Chiapas, including social, economic and human rights issues.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Excuse me but the time has expired.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am following up on a question I asked the Minister of National Defence on January 21.

The question I asked related to the excessive cost of government moves. The cost of these moves is in excess of $100 million. Government moves are handled through four van lines, three of which are 100 per cent American owned and one that is 30 per cent American owned.

Ten years ago these four van lines were fined a total of $250,000 after pleading guilty to conspiring to lessen competition. A court order prohibited the companies from exchanging information or becoming involved in any sort of price and service agreements.

These four van lines are still handling government moves and are in collusion to stop competition in government moves outside of the four van lines. Paul Leader, the senior vice-president of operations and director of government liaison, of Atlas Van Lines wrote to me and my colleague in Kitchener on December 15, 1993. Part of the letter states: "I am writing to you on behalf of the four van lines in Canada, Allied, Atlas, North American and United. For the past 25 years this group has been working with the federal government handling all the moving requirements for its employees."

The government is the biggest client of the moving business in Canada accounting for 35 per cent of Canada's moving business, yet pays 10 to 23 per cent more than CBC, Canadian National Railways, Northern Telecom and Canada Post.

A 1992 study by Consulting and Audit Canada conservatively identified $10 million in possible savings, which could be as high as $26 million.

In 1983 the Department of National Defence, as the country's biggest mover, received the lowest price on an average move when compared to five other major corporations. In 1993 the federal government paid the highest price on an average move.

When I started asking questions related to government moves I have been continually frustrated by government bureaucracy. I have experienced a classic example of "Yes, Minister", a British sitcom television program.

The interdepartmental committee, chaired by national defence, contracts with the van lines to carry out government moves. I have had people tell me that weights of goods moved on behalf of the government have been inflated, which if correct constitutes fraud, and that gifts have been given to employees of the interdepartmental committee responsible for contracting moves with the van lines.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the issue at hand involves the way the government purchases removal services for removal and related services for government employees. We are debating it because a claim has been made by the hon. member for Waterloo that the government thwarted a competitive plan to save taxpayers' money.

Let us review some of the background. As the Minister of National Defence stated in the House on January 21, the former government received six bids to take over the management of

government moves. Of the six, only one was compliant and cost several million dollars more than the government option. The remaining five bids were non-compliant.

Only 10 days before the election, former ministers in the Conservative government directed two pilot projects without authorization, one with a firm whose costs were millions more than the governments and the other with a company whose bid was found to be non-compliant. In other words, this non-compliant company went through normal government procedures to get this business but was unsuccessful. Nevertheless just over one week before the election, Conservative ministers awarded this unsuccessful bidder a pilot project. This government immediately cancelled the authority to conduct the pilot project.

The government is committed to ensuring that the taxpayers of Canada get the greatest value for their dollar and we are continuing to examine all options that are available to save money.

One question that comes up is: Are carriers blocked from bidding? No, they are not. Potential bidders must meet certain criteria in order to qualify. The requirement for the fiscal year 1994-95 will call for local representation in at least seven provinces covering 55 per cent of the interdepartmental committee business to meet departmental location requirements. That is an improvement over the current requirement of 85 per cent in all provinces. This reduction in representation was done to further encourage competition.

The government is committed to seeking ways to save taxpayers' money. The minister understands the hon. member's concern and is devoting every attention to ensuring the best use of limited resources.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the subject of the Irving Whale , as the information provided by the Minister of Environment puzzles me.

Allow me to take you back 23 years, to make sure we are all fully aware of the threat it poses. I will do my best to report the facts as accurately as possible.

On September 7, 1970, the Irving Whale , a tanker with a cargo of 3,200 tons of oil, sank off the Magdalen Islands.

A certain number of leaks were stopped, but several common murres covered in oil have recently been found on the shore. Based on these discoveries, an environmental specialist speculated that having reached its stress limit, it is only a matter of time before the tanker bursts open.

What bothers me is not having the faintest idea what actions have been taken. Let me explain. To a very specific question on her intentions concerning the release of the Marek report on the condition of the wreck, the minister answered that she would make it available as soon as possible. However, discussions with Coast Guard officials seem to indicate that there would actually be two separate reports instead of just the one, as I thought initially.

On top of the Marek report, there would be one from the CEF consulting firm on environmental hazards. Both reports, by the way, are still secret.

Is there not cause for concern when you ask the Minister of Environment if her department has a specific plan to avert a potential environmental disaster and she answers that she is looking for a financial solution?

If the financial aspect carries so much weight, perhaps the financial cost of some 3,000 tons of oil spilling on the shores of the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island should be evaluated.

If only out of respect for the citizens who are living under the constant threat of a spill, the time has come to show transparency and tell the truth about this disaster waiting to happen.

You will agree with me that, had this wreck been in Halifax harbour, we would not have had to wait 23 years for action. Things would have moved much faster.

Last Thursday, the Minister of Environment said she opted for refloating the tanker.

If this issue has been moving like never before during the past few weeks, as she reported, can the Minister of Environment tell us why it is that the people who are living with this time bomb will have to wait until the summer of 1995 for refloating to be undertaken?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, as an evidence of openness, it is I, first of all, who informed the member for Frontenac about the Irving Whale problem.

The first thing I did as a minister was to tell all the critics from all the political parties what my priorities were. It is I who informed the member opposite that, 20 years ago, the Irving Whale cracked and that I was trying to make it a priority of refloating the boat.

We must compare this action with the one that was taken by the leader of the opposition, who was himself the minister of Environment for almost two years. I come here and after only 100 days, I have the plan ready to start, not because we had movements from the Opposition, but because the member for Îles-de-la-Madeleine, directly, and the member of Prince Edward Island worked in consultation and in conjunction with myself, the minister.

I take my responsibilities seriously.

The hon. member talks about transparency and openness. His own leader was Minister of the Environment for almost two years and did not even answer the letters of the fishermen who wrote to him from Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

The fishermen, seeing a time bomb, wrote to him. He did not care to reply to their letter.

I think that we have a plan. We are working very hard and there were even meetings last Monday. Meetings are planned in the riding. The member of Parliament in the riding is the one who has the real power. He already had access to the meetings that will take place on March 2 and 3, both in Prince Edward Island and Îles-de-la-Madeleine and, after that, you will see that we will get results. In 100 days, the Liberal government can solve a problem that has been dragging on for 20 years. That is real power.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on January 21, I repeated the question on cigarette smuggling I had already asked I do not know how many times. I never found the answer satisfactory, but we finally have an explanation in the admission made by the leader of the government this week.

The important thing about this cigarette smuggling affair must not escape us-and I was the first to ask the Prime Minister questions about the possibility of reducing taxes to help Quebec solve its cigarette smuggling problem.

First, the Minister of Finance answered for the Prime Minister and said: "There is no way we are going to lower taxes". Then, the Prime Minister told me: "Maybe we will lower taxes. We are discussing it with the provinces". Later on, I was told: "We probably will lower taxes". Finally, the government did lower taxes as requested by the Premier of Quebec.

On the same issue, when I explained to the Prime Minister how serious the cigarette smuggling problem was in Quebec, he first told me: "Oh! cigarette smuggling is not such a serious problem in Quebec. The RCMP is taking care of it". Then, I was told: "Yes, there is smuggling, but everything is under control. Shipments are being intercepted by the RCMP and maybe the problem will eventually disappear". Later on, I was told: "Yes, there is smuggling, but the hon. member will not convince us that it is the native people who are engaged in this kind of activity. There is smuggling, the RCMP are doing their job, but it is not necessarily the Indians that are doing the smuggling, as the hon. member for Roberval says". And finally, they came to recognize that "yes, there is smuggling. Yes, it is being done mostly through the Akwesasne reserve".

They also finally admitted, when the Solicitor General answered a question I asked, that the RCMP were recovering 80,000 boxes of cigarettes. Just imagine what that represents. A quick tally showed that this amounted to a tiny percentage of the cigarettes smuggled into Canada.

This week, when the Prime minister announced the plan, the RCMP finally recognized that it was able to control barely 1 per cent of all cigarette smuggling throughout Canada.

The Minister of Environment was talking earlier to my colleague about transparency. The cigarette smuggling issue is a fine example of smoke screens. This is an example of an issue on which we, the opposition, with our little means, have had to try and get information every day, every minute, every moment this House has given us to finally uncover the truth, to shed some light on a serious problem which was really disturbing Quebecers.

In conclusion, I simply want to say that there are two other problems concerning the smuggling of cigarettes which have not been solved by the Prime minister. He has not done all his homework yet. He has not succeeded in convincing premiers of other provinces to join in the plan, which would have been essential. Now that he is only halfway there, Ontario will become the linchpin of smuggling activities in Canada.

And then he has not succeeded in meeting with the Indian reserve leaders to prevent any sad incidents which could take place. We are now being told that the Solicitor General has done his job.

It is disturbing to see such openness. It is disturbing to see that one has to wring scarce information out of this Parliament.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on January 21 the opposition House leader stood in this House during question period and accused the Prime Minister of vacillation on the subject of fighting the contraband cigarette trade. In fact the member for Roberval said and I quote: "His hesitation is the main reason for the growing revolt among Quebec convenience stores".

In response to this unfounded accusation I would like to share with the House what the Leader of the Opposition, the member's boss as it were, said about the Prime Minister's leadership on this issue: "I think that Jean Chrétien behaved like a Prime Minister-and as such guardian of the integrity of the law". This was quoted in the Toronto Star .

The opposition House leader and his party are trying to take the credit for the Prime Minister's decisiveness and his national action plan.

Canadians know the truth. Canadians understand the complexity of this issue and that the plan including enforcement crackdown, a reduction of consumer taxes, special action on tobacco manufacturers and the largest anti-smoking campaign in Canadian history is not thrown together in a couple of weeks. Months before members of his party were on national TV breaking the law openly, this government was working diligently to put together balanced public policy.

As the Prime Minister said in his statement on February 8, there is no perfect solution but we have come up with a fair, workable and decisive action plan. We must put an end to the terrorizing of entire communities. Canadians are counting on all members from all sides of this House to accomplish this very important task.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would ask for the indulgence of members. A stopwatch is clearly needed here in the chair. I think I have been cutting members off who have not gone to the maximum. The member for Waterloo has asked that he be given another minute since I cut him off and the Clerk agrees that I cut him off a minute too soon.

With the indulgence of all present I would ask that the member for Waterloo be allowed to finish his remarks. He has another minute. Is that agreeable?

Hearing no dissent, thank you. The hon. member for Waterloo.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we will have to cut and paste Hansard , but thank you.

There are further examples of employees working for the government retiring on pensions and then going to work for one of the moving companies.

Further information sent to the government in an attempt to win a share of the business by an excluded move management company and answers from the government ended up in the hands of the van lines.

This is not right. As the biggest mover in the country we should be receiving the best price on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada. At a time when we are looking at major cutbacks to military expenditures, we need to be as cost effective as possible. We must fight waste and inefficiency.

The Ottawa Citizen did a series of articles on this issue. In an editorial on January 28, 1994 the Citizen called for a Commons committee inquiry. I join that call for an inquiry. We cannot as a government afford to waste $25 million or more in these times of fiscal restraint.