Debates of Oct. 31st, 1994

Ethics

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The right hon. Prime Minister.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, he should stop lying to the House.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order. As you know, dear colleagues, it is unacceptable in this House to ascribe one member's motives to another member. It is certainly unacceptable to accuse a member of lying.

I would therefore ask, with all due respect, the Prime Minister to withdraw his comments.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I meant is that he is confusing the two. Judicial is not the same as quasi-judicial. I clearly explained the difference between the two.

[The Speaker]

I am sure we want to hear both sides. Members of Parliament will have the chance to express themselves in the House. I would, with all respect to the Prime Minister, ask him to withdraw those words where he said that the Leader of the Opposition lied.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

I just wanted to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker. If I said the word "lie"-

[Some hon. members]

Withdraw those words!

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

I am pleased to withdraw those words. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he should stick to the text; there is a difference between judicial-

[The Speaker]

Dear colleagues, at this time, the Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

I return to the Leader of the Opposition to take up where he left off. We have heard a withdrawal of the words which were in question. They are categorical. I accept them as the Chair and I return to the Leader of the Opposition.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I told the Prime Minister that there was no distinction between judicial and quasi-judicial bodies to the extent that they decide on rights. These are rights which were decided.

The heritage minister and the four other ministers who broke the rules all interfered with licence applications which the CRTC decides in order to create civil rights. In so doing, it is exactly the same as a court of law.

I continue and I conclude, because I have a time limit.

What we learned this morning is that despite all these declarations of respect for integrity, this cabinet also hid at least four other cases of violations of fundamental rules. I demand that these be followed up. I demand that we go beyond a simple ministerial statement which attempts to smooth things over. There must at least be an investigation by the ethics counsellor.

He should check all the files, make the rounds, meet the ministers who are at fault and the other ministers, because we are told that there might be more. The Prime Minister told us that there might be up to 100 cases. That is more cases than Cabinet ministers. So the ethics counsellor must investigate.

Secondly, the ethics counsellor should table in this House all the documents that he finds and be summoned before an appropriate parliamentary committee for a fundamental discussion, with witnesses, of an issue that affects the integrity not only of the government but of Canada's democratic institutions.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to say that I am very honoured and privileged to respond to the statement of the Prime Minister.

The way things work around here, different parties have a turn at being in government. We have had the Conservatives and Liberals over and over. I have to admit that sometimes when I look across I am overwhelmed at the magnitude of the responsibility ministers and the Prime Minister have. I sometimes wonder what we will be like when we get there.

We received a copy of the Prime Minister's statement only in an official language which does not happen to be my own. Except for a few paragraphs, most of my speech is going to be extemporaneous since I spent most of the time available to me getting it translated into the language I could understand. I hope you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, if some of the points I make and develop are perhaps not as well developed as we are accustomed to on this side of the House.

The Prime Minister has spoken of the necessity for integrity, honesty and openness. He speaks of that not only today but has done so on a number of other occasions. I was never a member of a political party before I was elected here. One thing that drew me to the party to which I belong, the Reform Party, was that it stressed very strongly the concepts of integrity and honesty. I assure the House and the Prime Minister that his continually talking about integrity and honesty strikes a chord with the Canadian people because they want it and I want it.

The question here is not whether we want it. In the notes that I took I see his speech included talking about integrity and honesty. That is really not the debate. We already agree on that. However, the question is how to do it.

Without being disrespectful, what we have heard today is a longer answer to a question in Question Period without the nasty interruption of another question. We heard an explanation, trying to put oil on the waters and smooth them out. We are seeing massive damage control.

I would like to take a few minutes to get down to the basics of this issue. The question before us was triggered by a particular incident that has occupied the House for the last week. First we need to ask ourselves if we would be here debating this and would we be doing it in this way if it were not for this incident? Would the government be as eager to push forward this agenda if it had not been driven to it? Perhaps this is reactionary but we

need to get on with it. We need to make sure there is integrity in government.

We need to back up one step. One of the reasons the Canadian people and the opposition so strenuously object to what has happened is back one step further. It concerns the way government works.

We all recognize that in our system of government all of us as members of Parliament are essentially powerless to influence true decision making. On a number of occasions we have put motions which have made eminent good sense to anyone who stops to think about them. Yet to a person, all of the members in the government have voted the way their leadership and their party, including their ministers, have directed on an issue. I accept that as fact. That is what has been happening. I can observe that. I have come to that conclusion.

In the perception of the Canadian people, ministers are very powerful. Indeed they are. That is why one needs to object when a minister gives even the inkling that he is exercising that excessive power in order to influence matters on behalf of his constituents, a role that is not available to ordinary MPs in opposition or in government.

We need to ask the government what has happened here. The Prime Minister has correctly stated that just because one is a member of the cabinet one should not be disenfranchised as a member of Parliament. I agree with that principle. The cabinet minister, as a member of Parliament, must be able to represent his constituents in legitimate matters. It is the variation that is at question here.

This particular incident occurred when a minister made a statement on ministerial letterhead and because he is the minister overseeing that area it can properly be viewed as being undue influence.

The ethics code does not permit that. I was able to pull this out quickly from one of my files. I quote from the ethics package: "Public office holders shall act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced".

That principle is violated when several people are contending for a licence and one has behind him the power of a ministerial letter and the other one has an ordinary MP representing him. Because it is in the same department I believe this is a violation of the principle and ought to result in more than just an apology and "let us try to do better". We need to go beyond that.

I also want to quote from the same document with respect to preferential treatment: "Public office holders shall not step out of their official roles to assist private entities or persons in their dealings with the government where this would result in preferential treatment to any person". In this case it is evident that this has happened. It is wrong and it needs to be corrected.

We also have the question of the ethics counsellor.

I hope the Prime Minister was honest, and I have no reason to question it, when he said: "We want to have not only the appearance of more integrity, but we actually want more integrity whether it is in appearance or not". I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the minister's motivation there. I am in agreement with it.

I will not relate all of the details of what has been going on in the past few days, but when we have an ethics counsellor who is being consulted only in retrospect after decisions are made and then, so it appears, only to help put oil on the waters, that casts great doubt on the whole procedure. I think it is a violation of the principle to have an ethics counsellor be responsible to, take his directions from and answerable to the Prime Minister only.

I do agree that the Prime Minister needs all of the assistance he can get. I believe he needs to have counsellors in the area of ethics and certainly in the areas of operating this government. He needs all the help he can get but could we perhaps in addition have an ethics counsellor with the same order of independence and accountability to Parliament as, say, the Auditor General has in financial matters?

I think it would be eminently fair, very helpful to the Canadian people and would certainly help all of us in this place as members of Parliament to understand and believe the government if there were an independent inquiry, not pushed around by political interests but one which would be truly independent and respond openly and honestly with the assessment of what has happened, a recommendation of what should be done now in order to solve this situation, what we need to do, what rules we need to change, what legislation we need to bring in and what people we need in order to make it work better and more correctly.

I conclude by simply saying that this is a very, very unfortunate blight on this Parliament. It is an area where doubt is and has been cast on the government. We can only say that it is important for us as soon as possible, as cleanly as possible and as openly as possible to bring this to a conclusion and allow the minister to resign. Let us get this done the way it ought to be done and produce in the minds of people a genuine trust in the government.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up from where I left off.

This is what some people who were involved and interested in the issue said at the time. However, all these representations, warnings and concerns proved to be of little help, since the current Minister of the Environment announced that legislation on October 6.

The amendments which are proposed by the minister and included in Bill C-56 do no change anything to the centralizing objectives of the federal government. The regulations made under old Bill C-13 are nothing to reassure those who want to invest in Quebec. Except for the construction of houses for non-migratory birds or field shelters, an almost endless number of projects could trigger a federal environmental assessment. The Minister of the Environment knows full well that the current Leader of the Opposition is not the one who drafted these regulations.

It is her government that decided to take control over Quebec's economic development by subjecting to a federal assessment projects of vital importance for our province, including mining development as well as the expansion of power plants and hydroelectric projects. The strategy used by the minister to that end is both very simple and very predictable.

The minister makes arrangements with a number of provinces to take control of fields where those provinces have not exercised their jurisdiction. She then signs an agreement with those provinces and there you have it: that agreement becomes just as valid for Quebec as it is for the other provinces. This is the automatic response of this centralizing government.

And the Liberals behave that way in other sectors as well. Since they took office, they have constantly introduced projects aimed at giving the federal more control over the provinces. The big federal machine is systematically trying to gain more control in every sector, in spite of its own problems and its serious functional and political deficiencies.

Members sitting on the other side are pleased. They keep singing each other's praises, they keep chanting "Long live the federal government; long live our strong centralizing government; long live the big federal machine". However, the other side of the coin is very depressing and raises serious concerns among people. And people are right to be worried. The federal government is like a steamroller levelling everything and jeopardizing vital entitlements. People fought to gain these rights and now they have to fight again to preserve them.

In fact, with their big boss who speaks of dignity and pride, their bread and butter supplier, the Liberals are driving a huge steamroller over the less affluent and middle-income taxpayers.

The provinces are also getting crushed under this huge steamroller. Naturally, the rich, the large corporations, the financiers, all those who are for centralizing to excess find pleasure in watching the steamroller do its job. It is a real shame, Mr. Speaker.

Small is beautiful and people first are concepts unknown to the people opposite. Yet, on the evening of October 25, 1993, these same people had promised us the moon. But getting back to the subject, let me quote them.

When they were in opposition, the Liberals opposite used to speak against the bill on the federal environmental assessment legislation. This will illustrate the striking transformation elected members undergo when they move across the way. It is tragi-comic.

Bach in those days, the present Liberal member for Winnipeg North Centre was saying: "We must ensure that the powers put in place are explicit enough to make it possible to develop environmental standards that can withstand provincial pressure. The government is not protecting Canadians, with this bill at least, against the aims of the provincial and federal governments. The people have been let down in so many ways already that, if we do it again, Parliament will score more poorly than ever".

That is what he thought of this bill passed by his government. It was no good then, but now it is OK.

The Liberal member for Eglinton-Lawrence, who still sits in this House, said on October 22, 1990, and I quote: "It is, in fact, legislation without teeth". [-]The key word was "redraft" and not make amendments that are going to provide acceptable frills to this bill but to alter completely the whole dimension of this bill. [-]One of those items refers to the fact that the compliance component of the bill certainly is very lacking. There is absolute indifference to the concept of making various jurisdictions of government comply, particularly when they set up their own review mechanisms".

Our colleague from Egmont, Prince Edward Island, was saying: "Bill C-78 does not meet the legislative requirements relating to environmental protection. Considering how important and urgently required this legislation is, we cannot be satisfied with such an ill-defined and toothless bill. This bill does not meet the expectations of Canadians nor those of the government's own environment and economy committee". It is so seriously flawed that it should be withdrawn or redrafted. But I am sure he will vote for this bill.

The Liberal member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso said: "In addition, I have many concerns about the philosophy behind the bill and about the bill's effectiveness". As I listen to this debate, I am convinced the government should go back to the drawing board before it asks us to pass this bill. Many basic aspects of this measure should be rethought, and quite frankly, I must say the bill is far from perfect.

The Liberal member for Nepean went even further when she said: "Unfortunately, the weakness of the legislation before us makes for a sceptical public and questions the motives of us as legislators and the seriousness of the government's intent in enacting this resolution".

The current Secretary of State and Liberal member for Northumberland said, in referring to Bill C-78, and I quote: "Mr. Mulroney's government's latest environmental legislation is fundamentally flawed. Canada will return to the dark ages of environmental law if Bill C-78 passes in its present form".

The present Minister of Industry said in the House: "The heritage of Canadians is too important to be left only to the provinces. I do not see even a wish to acknowledge that it has the power to intervene in development projects which are going to be environmentally harmful. This bill is an inadequate response in the context of many events occurring in Canada".

One of his cabinet colleagues, the Minister of social program cuts, mentioned that his Liberal colleagues had been devastating in their criticism of the flaws of this bill. He said this measure would do no good at all. He hoped that someday, we would have a government that would be able to negotiate a new agreement, with responsibility shared by federal and provincial authorities. "I think that our own creative juices should be employed for finding out how we can share jurisdiction for environmental assessment", said the present minister. It is rather comical that at the time, this minister talked about sharing responsibility, when we consider the negative response from the provinces to his social security reform.

Finally, the first prize goes to our beloved Minister of Finance, and I will give you a few samples of what he said. "Bill C-78 is so flawed that it will weaken existing standards for environmental assessment. The bill is lacking in all respects."

"So we have a bill that died on the Order Paper and which the government, with its supreme arrogance and total lack of logic, now wants to resurrect, although the measure was unanimously rejected by Canadians. As unrealistic governments go, this one takes the cake. And if there is one government proving it, it surely is the present one with its attitude towards Bill C-78. First, this bill is based on a completely false assumption. But the government wants to hold fast to a vision developed in the 1850s and to continue to believe we can produce goods without worrying about waste and the frittering away of our resources, as if it had no importance whatsoever".

"Both the business representatives and the environmentalists heard in committee think this bill is unacceptable". "When we come to office in two years, I can assure you that no member will ask himself if the water he drinks is harmless. This bill will cause more problems than it will solve. It should go back to the drawing board."

We should not be astonished by the radical turnabouts of the Minister of Finance. He is the wind vane of the Liberals.

That is what some governement members were saying when they were on this side of the House. Should we believe they were all victims of the same phenomenon and all have to get a feeling of the wind, like the Minister of Finance, before making up their minds?

The most serious aspect of this sudden change of mind on the part of the Liberals is that the Minister of Environment now praises this bill and congratulates our leader for having initiated it in 1990. She says he is the father of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and pats him on the back every opportunity she gets whereas, at the time, the Liberals were certainly not patting him on the back, quite the contrary. They were strongly against this bill, as their statements on the subject show. That is typical of the Liberals. They are real weathercocks. No, worse than that, they are opportunists.

As far as this Bill C-56 is concerned, the federal minister wants to make sure that, as much as possible, only one environmental assessment will be made for each project. Of course, and again this is easy to anticipate, she will fall back on our leader to justify her bill, but we all know that the bill tabled by our leader in 1990 has been extensively amended and that-

[The Speaker]

It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.

United Nations

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago last week the United Nations was formed. While there have been many changes to the form of the UN its basic goal has remained the same.

Together nations of goodwill can offer assistance and help in the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Peacekeeping is a Canadian invention and I am ever so proud to have eight members of the Elgin Regiment located in my riding going to war torn Bosnia to assist the civilians who are not war lords nor combatants but simple civilians caught in a crossfire.

Canada working through the UN has a long and distinguished history. The United Nations, while desperately needing rejuvenation, remains the world's best hope for conflict resolution.

I wish the young men from my riding who have chosen to wear the blue beret all of God's protection as they carry out this noble task.

His Eminence Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for the entire Catholic community of Quebec to learn today that the archbishop of Montreal, the Most Reverend Jean-Claude Turcotte, was named cardinal.

Monsignor Turcotte, third cardinal from Montreal in Quebec's history, is joining the Sacred College of cardinals responsible for electing a new pope when the Holy Father dies. Aged 58, Monsignor Turcotte will be able to influence the direction of the Church in Montreal and Quebec for many years to come.

The Bloc Quebecois wishes to congratulate warmly His Eminence Cardinal Turcotte. He will no doubt manage to convey to the higher levels of the Church's hierarchy the concerns and values of openness, mutual help and tolerance of Quebec society. Monsignor Turcotte's dedication to the poorest of the poor is widely recognized.

Health

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker since 1986 thousands of cattle in Great Britain have contracted what is commonly known as mad cow disease.

Mad cow disease has an incubation period of up to eight years and can be detected only in its advanced stages. There is no evidence that it can be spread by animal to animal contact, but to be safe Agriculture Canada started banning the importation of cattle from the U.K. in 1990.

Every year thousands of immigrants enter Canada without being screened for HIV. Although many years can pass before HIV carriers develop full blown AIDS, the virus is readily detectable by a cheap, effective blood test.

Is it not in the best interests of the immigrants themselves and their families, as well as the Canadian public, for them to know if they are carrying the deadly HIV virus?

In light of the vote taken two hours ago on Motion No. 285, it is now apparent that Agriculture Canada's concern for the health of Canadian cattle is greater than the health minister's concern for the health of the Canadian people.

Atlantic Theatre Festival

[John Murphy, Liberal, Annapolis Valley—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, a new and exciting artistic event in Atlantic Canada is being prepared for launching in June 1995.

The town of Wolfville, Nova Scotia, in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants will be host to the newly created Atlantic Theatre Festival.

Recently I had the chance to attend a fundraising event for the festival. I am confident it will be of great cultural benefit to the region while providing tremendous social and economic spinoffs.

The successful organization of the festival is an example of what can be achieved when all levels of government and community interest groups work in co-operation to achieve a common goal.

I offer my congratulations to all those involved and in particular to Michael Bawtree, the festival's founder. I know their hard work and dedication will lead to great success.

Parliamentary Interns

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

Mr. Speaker, welcome to our parliamentary interns. The Parliamentary Internship Program is in its 25th year.

I welcome all these new young people. They are bright, hard working, energetic and highly motivated. They have made and continue to make a tremendous contribution to all of us. We wish them well as they celebrate their 25th year of providing service.

I have said before and I would like to say again that I wish I were in a position where I could facilitate that each member of Parliament who wanted such a young man or young woman to work with him or her would be able to do so.

I want to congratulate everyone who has supported them.

The private sector especially deserves a great deal of credit because with the support of government and with the young people it has created a program that is among the finest in Canada and perhaps throughout the world.

I thank all these young men and women.

Thank you all, young people, for your assistance.

Quality Control

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Ottawa Valley chapter of the American Society for Quality Control is hosting its annual conference today at the Congress Centre in Ottawa.

The American Society for Quality Control is the largest quality control network in the world. The society is committed to promotion of total quality in the public and private sectors of our economy. The pursuit of total quality management will enhance Canada's national well-being and global competitiveness.

The session on total quality management in government will be held from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. today. The federal sector is represented by Harry Swain, deputy minister of industry; the provincial sector by Premier Frank McKenna; and the municipal sector by Mayor Brian Turnbull. The fact that Brian Turnbull, the mayor of the city of Waterloo, is representing the municipal sector reflects the leadership that Waterloo has offered in the area of TQM at the municipal level.

As we strive to meet the deficit targets set by the finance minister, we must ensure that TQM is practised by all departments of the government.

Minister Of Canadian Heritage

[Laurent Lavigne, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is getting lost in studies, which all contradict one another.

Having commissioned a study on the financing of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from Nordicity Group Ltd., the minister, obviously unhappy with their recommendations, commissioned another study, from Omnia Communications this time, to conduct a critical analysis of the work done as part of the first one.

The second study found that the first one was based on concepts so outdated and assumptions so shaky that the results were inevitably invalid.

Perhaps the Minister of Canadian Heritage should have conducted the study himself to read into it whatever he wanted. It is outrageous to spend public funds this way. How much did these contradictory studies cost and how much will the next ones cost?

Refugees

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, abuse of Canada's immigration system goes on unchecked by the government. In fact Ottawa is to blame for much of the abuse.

On September 9 a Fijian visitor with relatives in Vancouver armed with a refugee lawyer claimed refugee status in Canada. Officials did not know, however, that he needed kidney treatment that he could not get in Fiji.

He checked into St. Paul's hospital in Vancouver. Rather than being placed on a waiting list or being sent home for treatment, federal officials ordered the hospital to put the man at the top of the list for dialysis, despite the fact that six terminally ill Canadians were bumped from the list.

This is an outrage. The refugee system seems to work best for those who want to abuse it. In this case it could cost Canadian lives. I demand that the minister immediately intervene, tell his officials to reverse their decision, put the lives of Canadians first, and prevent those with terminal illnesses from coming to the country and claiming refugee status just to get medical treatment.

Governor General

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is evolving as a nation and it is time we reflect on our symbols of nationhood. Canadians want to be part of the process of deciding such a national figure as our head of state.

In cursory surveys I have conducted in public schools in Durham, I have discovered that few of our youth can identify the Governor General. This is partly because they or their parents have not participated in his selection.

Of twenty-four OECD countries only three appoint their heads of state and Canada is one of them. I note the election of the head of state would not require a constitutional amendment but could be done by convention. I suggest that we elect the Governor General at the time of a general election. As an interim step we could have the House vote on a short list prepared by the Prime Minister.

I believe this methodology would give the position of the Governor General more credibility and strength in our federation.