Debates of June 13th, 1996

Klondike Gold Rush

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the Prime Minister today signed a proclamation declaring the celebration of the centennial of the Klondike gold rush, an event of national significance.

One hundred years ago the Klondike gold rush attracted fortune seekers from all over the planet in search of adventures that captured the imagination of the world.

The discovery of gold shaped the future of Yukon and indeed the future of Canada. This anniversary is part of a decade of centennial celebrations in Yukon. Today is also the 98th anniversary of Yukon as a territory.

These events are being further commemorated today by the unveiling of a series of commemorative Klondike stamps by Canada Post. Earlier this year, the Royal Canadian Mint launched its 1996, 14 carat gold coin "Centennial of the Discovery of Gold in the Klondike".

I am pleased, therefore, to call on all Canadians to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the momentous discovery which launched the Klondike gold rush, a colourful saga of the Canadian north.

Cae

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the firm CAE in Ville-Saint-Laurent has just announced it will expand its facilities. The project, estimated at some $8 million, will enable the firm to provide an additional 500 jobs over the next two years.

This major expansion of the Montreal plant is due, among other reasons, to the international reputation of its flight simulators. The news comes at a perfect time to reward the efforts of all the employees of this firm, which celebrates its 50th anniversary this year.

This company, with its head office in Toronto, provides work for more than 6,200 people in Canada, including 4,000 in the Montreal area. With a full order book, quality products and highly trained employees, CAE is proving once again the importance and the cost effectiveness of investing in research and development in Canada.

Airbus Aircraft

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has revealed that, a few days after his appointment as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, he approached RCMP authorities concerning the Airbus affair.

Let us not forget that the minister has admitted that the information he communicated to the RCMP originated with an unidentified journalist.

I am asking the minister whether he advised the Prime Minister of the approaches he was planning to make to the RCMP, before he was appointed Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Canada?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

No, Mr. Speaker, but there is an assumption in the question that is wrong.

The hon. member asserted in his preamble that there has been an omission that I involved myself in the Airbus investigation. That is plain wrong. The choice of language and precision of expression is important in this matter.

The House will know from what has been said that I have made it a matter of public record that after consulting with my deputy minister and the Solicitor General of Canada, I communicated to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in November 1993, or thereabouts, information which I had received with respect to the previous government.

The RCMP then communicated with me after they had looked into those matters and said that there was no basis for investigation.

Subsequently, separately, the RCMP commenced an investigation into what is now called the Airbus affair. I had no knowledge of or involvement in that investigation. My first knowledge of it was derived on November 4, 1995 when one of the lawyers for Mr. Mulroney telephoned me at home.

Those are the facts. In communicating information to the RCMP that I had learned early in November 1993, I was not only acting after consulting with the deputy minister and the solicitor general, but as it appears from reports in the media in recent days, I was doing exactly the same as at least one former minister of justice, John Turner, said he did when he was fixed with information of that kind.

Therefore, I invite the hon. member to be careful in how he expresses himself. I had no involvement in the Airbus investigation, as that is known. That is a matter for the police.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister tells us that he communicated information to the RCMP. I an not making any assumptions on the role he played in the affair.

Having this information, however, and intending to communicate it to the RCMP-I am not saying he interfered in the investigation-I am asking him, knowing all this, when the Prime Minister invited him to be Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Canada, did he not find it appropriate to inform the Prime Minister of his intention to communicate that information to the RCMP because, after becoming Solicitor General and Minister of Justice, he would be the one responsible for the case.

Is this not a lack of judgment? Let us keep in mind, all ministers speak on behalf of the government, commit the Cabinet, commit the Prime Minister. Why then did he not inform the Prime Minister?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

No, Mr. Speaker, it is not.

In the first place, at the time when I was sworn in I had not yet consulted either with the deputy or the solicitor general with respect to the information in my proper role. Second, a police investigation is not the responsibility of the attorney general and the Minister of Justice.

If the hon. member will look at the roles and responsibilities of officers of the government, he will see the RCMP conducts investigations on its own. It is the solicitor general, not the attorney general, who reports to Parliament for the police.

These are not simply matters of detail. They are fundamental issues, as I said in response to a question last week from the hon. member's colleague. Police investigations are run by the police, not by politicians.

It is only those who choose not to see it who say there is no distinction between an attorney general acting responsibly in communicating to the RCMP information so it can pursue it and exercise its own judgment about its importance and an attorney general saying to the police: "I will have no role in a police investigation. That is up to you to decide". Those are the principles.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister tells us that he did not speak to the deputy ministers or the people in the department before becoming minister and Solicitor General. I can understand that, as he was not yet in the position. The opposite situation would have surprised me greatly.

What I am asking the minister is that, when invited to join the cabinet as Solicitor General and Minister of Justice-he was the one who would have to deal with this matter later on. I am not speaking of the investigation, or of the letters sent to Switzerland, to a foreign government, by his department, which was nevertheless responsible-would it not have been appropriate at that time for him to inform the Prime Minister that he was privy to some information, that he had heard certain things, allegations from a journalist, in order not to be in conflict of interest or to appear to be in conflict of interest?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I know this is an important matter. I try to give all latitudes à celui qui demande les questions et à celui qui répond. For the rest of question period I ask that you be very precise in the question. Maybe we can cut down a little on the preamble.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will poke in vain through the entrails of this affair to find some squalid political advantage.

There are two principles in operation here, and I abided in them both. First, as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, when I am fixed with information and consult with my deputy and with the solicitor general and am then advised that it is properly communicated to the RCMP, I do so. That is fulfilling a moral obligation. I am encouraged to see that predecessors in office have done the same, including John Turner.

The second principle is the police conduct investigations without interference from politicians. When I communicate information, it is up to the police to decide what to do with it.

In this instance they wrote back and said "we have looked into it and we are doing nothing with it". Then if they on their own decide to commence an investigation, as apparently they did, they are to do that investigation without being controlled or influenced by politicians. That is the second principle and that principle was also respected.

The hon. member will look in vain for any wrongdoing in this case.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the House of Commons, the Minister of Justice denied the report by the CBC to the effect that the libel suit brought against the government in the Airbus deal might be settled out of court.

However, by indicating that an out of court settlement is always the best solution, the Minister of Justice admitted that the government was trying to get that kind of settlement in the Airbus case.

Can the Minister of Justice tell us if, in the Airbus case, the main objective of the government is to settle out of court and if the department's counsels have made a proposal to that end?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the question of whether litigation should be settled is a matter for lawyers. As I said yesterday, I think in civil litigation the interests of the parties are always best protected, best served, by settling rather than by litigating issues.

There is no settlement imminent in this case that I am aware of. There is no concrete proposal on the table that I am aware of. If the parties through their solicitors have communication, so much the better. We will always be mindful of the public interest in whatever settlement discussions take place.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that the department's counsels heard the minister say that a settlement out of court was the best solution. I do not think they are deaf.

Would the minister not agree that his own poor judgment put the government in a very bad legal situation, that will cost a lot of money to the Canadian taxpayers and undermine the credibility of the whole government?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that this litigation was commenced by the plaintiff, not by us. As to what it will cost the taxpayer, the hon. member ought to wait and see how the case turns out.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this airbus scandal continues to take flight. Although it is clear there have been gross errors of judgment, errors of commission and omission, the minister continues to confuse the people of Canada by denying all responsibility and says he is taking no part, no play in this comedy of errors.

Now the Liberals are talking about a payoff to keep Mr. Mulroney quiet and taxpayers are on the hook for millions.

If the minister is not responsible for this Keystone cop routine, who will he blame? Is it the RCMP, the reporters? Who is he blaming?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the matter is in litigation. The questions I was asking had to do with the prospect of settlement.

As I said, there is no settlement imminent, no concrete proposal for settlement. There is no issue at present of spending any taxpayer money. I said earlier we should wait and see how this litigation turns out.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the news even the Prime Minister mentioned he would be open to the idea of settling this out of court. He did not mention numbers, but I suppose he would agree even if it costs millions of dollars.

I think Canadian taxpayers are upset. The Minister is acting like Monte Hall: "Brian Mulroney, let's make a deal". I think that is unacceptable. Why did the minister and his department not get the facts straight before he risked millions of taxpayer dollars?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not have his facts straight. I said no such thing. Negotiations and litigation for the settlement of cases are for lawyers and should be left to the lawyers acting for the parties.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this Airbus investigation, regardless of who is to blame, has been bungled right from the word go. The screw-up has cost Canadians and it will cost, starting with this payoff to Mr. Mulroney, millions of dollars. What is more disturbing is that no one on that side of the House will take any responsibility for anything that has happened to date.

Will the minister take ministerial responsibility for the crash landing of this Airbus investigation? If he wants to know what to do, there are two seats in the front, two on the side and two in the back.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I take responsibility for the Department of Justice. From the outset the Department of Justice has acted in an appropriate fashion.

As to the litigation, if there is any settlement to be discussed it will be discussed between the lawyers for the parties, the people who should be undertaking that work.

Federal-Provincial Relations

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was asked about the Charlottetown style model of federal-provincial relations that the government is putting forward and he said, and I quote: "The Government of Quebec has certain responsibilities. It has a hard time assuming them all the time, and we are offering government assistance to ensure that this responsibility is carried out as well as possible."

Are we to understand that the minister believes the provinces are unable to manage the programs from which they want the federal government to withdraw and that that is why the government wants to remain in charge, set the standards and keep the money, simply letting the provinces carry out the orders? That is indeed the way he sees it.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, if the provinces of Canada are limited to carrying out the orders, what about the German L«nders, the Swiss cantons, the American states, the Australian states, all federated entities that dream about the powers the Canadian provinces have?

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a learned constitutional expert, the minister also said yesterday and I quote: "The Government of Canada has the responsibility of ensuring that these moneys are administered responsibly."

The minister talks about co-operation, but at the same time he questions the provinces' ability to administer the moneys responsibly. Does that mean that the federal government will continue to act as a big brother to the provinces it considers incompetent and totally irresponsible?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, if, for once, just for once, the official opposition members were to look at the problems we have not through their glasses which make them see plots everywhere, but with the best interests of Canadians in mind, they would have to agree that we have a wonderful federation that gives us the best standard of living in the world and that we can work together to improve it even further. You only have to believe in this federation of ours.

First Ministers Conference

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Klein has said he will not participate in secret discussions on the Constitution and he would walk out of a first ministers conference that did that.

Premier Clark said he will not participate and yesterday premier Bouchard repeated he will not participate in constitutional discussions at the first ministers conference.

Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs make a commitment that at the FMC any discussions of the Constitution will either be public and open or the agenda item will be withdrawn?