Debates of Nov. 14th, 1994

Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition is insinuating is entirely incorrect. Under the agreement signed on July 19, there would still be 100 officer cadets in Saint-Jean, as well as a language course. Yes, military training has been concentrated in Kingston because as the army downsizes, we no longer need three military colleges; one is enough.

The reason the Quebec government wants to keep military courses in Saint-Jean, as Louise Beaudoin indicated, is that it wants to prepare to have its own army for when Quebec is independent.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, this does not show much consideration for all the generations of French-speaking officers who were brilliantly trained in Saint-Jean, had a great military career and are now being told that officers can no longer be trained in Quebec because it is a separatist province.

I ask the minister if, in his letter of November 9 to his Quebec counterpart, he suggested that only the military college in Kingston is able to promote "the values appropriate to the Canadian Armed Forces". How, except for the fact that it is in Quebec, is the military college in Saint-Jean unable to meet the requirements of the Canadian forces?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the college in Saint-Jean has had a great and illustrious career. Even though more than 75 per cent of French speaking officers in the armed forces were trained outside Saint-Jean,

there is no doubt that the college in Saint-Jean played an extremely useful role in training French speaking officers.

But it so happens that the size of the armed forces is being reduced considerably. We only need to educate about 200 cadets a year and we will educate them and give them just as good an education as they would get in Saint-Jean in the military college in Kingston, where Canadian forces personnel will be brought together to be educated.

We no longer need three colleges; we need only one and that is just what we will do in Kingston.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in a last-ditch effort to save the college in Saint-Jean, the Quebec government offered $8 million a year, enough for this institution to run properly, while meeting the federal government's cost-cutting targets. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs rejected this offer from Quebec out of hand.

Can the minister of Canadian intergovernmental affairs tell us if the federal government seriously analyzed the budgetary impact of the Quebec government's offer to spend $8 million a year to run the college in Saint-Jean before it hurriedly rejected it?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the future of the college in Saint-Jean has been studied for months, at least since last year's budget. The former government of Quebec and the federal government arrived at a solution that would allow the college in Saint-Jean to remain open with a military presence. That is the agreement that we came to and that we want to maintain.

It is no longer possible to use the college in Saint-Jean for military training, simply because there are not enough military students in Canada. The college in Kingston will provide a bilingual education to all military students in Canada. We only need one college and the officers to be trained in Kingston will undoubtedly receive an education as good as that previously provided at the college in Saint-Jean.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, by referring to last year's studies, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs just confirmed that the government did not even bother to review the budgetary impact of the Quebec government's proposal, and that is serious.

How can this minister state that Quebec's proposal does not take into account the federal government's budget requirements, when transferring military training from Saint-Jean to Kingston involves major additional expenditures for building facilities that already exist at the college in Saint-Jean?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada estimates that it will save about $23 million a year-and not $8 million-by closing the military college in Saint-Jean and that transferring the Saint-Jean students represents only a fraction of the money we will save in the long run.

There is no doubt that, as far as the Canadian Forces and Canadian military training are concerned, concentrating our military training in Kingston is a better solution. We also offered Quebec $25 million over five years so that the college in Saint-Jean could remain open. That is the acceptable solution, one that will allow the college in Saint-Jean to remain open, and that we want the Quebec government to honour because it signed an agreement to that effect.

Immigration And Refugee Board

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister released confidential names and testimony to his embattled appointee to the IRB, Michael Schelew. These were names of people who had accused Schelew of intimidation and wrongdoing but gave testimony under the promise of confidentiality.

My office consulted with the privacy commission and was told that the minister's actions are grounds for a complaint under the Privacy Act. The minister released to someone accused of intimidation the names of his accusers before any discovery was made.

How can the minister of immigration possibly justify this gross contravention of the Privacy Act?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the process I took great care in terms of not releasing or disclosing those names. Once the chair made her report available to me, my counsel wrote a letter to the deputy chair asking for his response to that report and the appropriateness of the recommendation.

It was then on the advice of the justice department that those names be disclosed to the deputy chair's counsel so that individual may respond in kind.

At the same time the IRB was advised of that and subsequently advised those individuals. It was on the advice of the justice department. The justice lawyer communicated those names to the counsel for the deputy chair. Our officials have also been in touch with the same privacy commissioner.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it remarkable that an investigation could go on in this fashion and yet there be influence against a witness who may pose as a potential witness in a future investigation or a court hearing.

This weekend Schelew called two of the people and actually went to the home of another person who had filed complaints against them, like an accused calling on the victims for a little chat before a trial.

The minister has repeatedly said that the IRB is at arm's length and that he does not have any influence over it. Will the minister admit that he has exercised influence by improperly releasing confidential information in an attempt to bolster the defence of appointee Michael Schelew?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I reject that completely out of hand. I repeat for the hon. member that the names were disclosed to the counsel of Mr. Schelew on the advice of the justice department in response to my request for the deputy chair to respond to the report of the chair and the appropriateness of the recommendation and that the IRB members in question were advised immediately by the IRB.

Second, with respect to the report made by the chair to me, I take that report as well as the response by the deputy chair very seriously. I also say to the member that it is very extensive, particularly the report. My office received the response late Thursday. I had a chance to look at it for the very first time only on late Friday evening. We are taking the matter very seriously and I would suspect that the member would not want me to speculate until a decision has been rendered which will be done in the right way.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this minister clearly thinks he is above the law. The minister has not violated-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

I would ask the hon. member to put his question, please.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has not only violated the Privacy Act but also basic justice. We are talking about an investigation here and witnesses.

As a former police officer if I were to release information to an accused in a crime of those people who were accusing me or an individual before any charges were laid that would cost me my job and probably there would be criminal charges against me.

Recently in Ontario two ministers-

[The Speaker]

I would ask the hon. member to put his question now, please.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, will this minister admit that he has made a gross and inexcusable violation similar to those ministers in Ontario who had to resign and consider doing the same?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the member to put the entire situation in proper context.

I first received five names from a media outlet. Upon receiving those names I wrote the chair of the board to have her look into the allegations made by these five individuals. In my letter to her I explicitly left out the names. I phoned her and verbalized the names. She did the same in her report.

Subsequent to that I asked through my counsel at justice that the deputy chair be seized with the chair's report and respond to the appropriateness of the recommendation. Following that the counsel to the deputy chair asked the counsel at the Department of Justice for the names in order that that individual may defend himself.

Only after advice from the Department of Justice was the advice that we had to give those names to the lawyer of the deputy chair. Nothing has been compromised. No one is above the law. This minister and this government have followed the process flawlessly.

International Trade

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

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

Team Canada's trip to China gradually became a political show where investments totalling billions of dollars are announced when, in fact, these figures are arrived at by adding contracts signed a long time ago with mere letters of intent regarding eventual contracts, as in the case of the CANDU reactors. In fact, the communique released in Beijing by the Canadian government states that the federal government is not responsible for the accuracy of information relating to investments or to the value of contracts.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs admit that the Team Canada mission is essentially a political show, since most of the contracts announced are either only letters of intent or were known long before that trip, and that the government itself refuses to endorse the figures released?

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, our political opponents are obviously very bitter following the extraordinary success of the mission led by the Prime Minister.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Michel, QC]

I am aware of the bitter reaction of minister Landry and I am disappointed to see the opposition member adopt the same attitude. The fact is that Team Canada, which is led by the Prime Minister and includes nine premiers as well as some 300 business people, made an extremely successful trip to China which is unprecedented. Chancellor Kohl made a visit which resulted in contracts totalling some four billion dollars for Germany; a trip by the US trade representative, Mr. Brown, resulted in business deals of some $5.2 billion. Yet, the total figure for these two missions is not even as high as the amount of the contracts obtained by the group led by the Canadian Prime Minister.

In other words, this is an extremely successful trip and, instead of minimizing its results, our opponents should be pleased because this will mean jobs for Canada and particularly for several Quebec ridings.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister stands by what he just said, how can he explain the fact that the $800-million contract for Dominion Bridge, which was hailed as one of the major achievements of that mission, was not signed during Team Canada's trip to China but last June?

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of that company thanked the Prime Minister for putting the final touch to a contract which was taking time to finalize.

Our friends in opposition should realize that, ultimately, several contracts being negotiated can only be finalized and approved through a final political decision. Meetings between high-level political representatives help finalize contracts for which negotiations often drag on for too long.

I can assure the hon. member that, with this visit, the Prime Minister was able to help many Canadian businesspeople, including some from Quebec who had the courtesy of joining Team Canada to China. This initiative helped finalize and sign contracts which will translate into thousands of Canadian jobs in the months to come.

Immigration And Refugee Board

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

The minister has shown a fondness in the past for stating with much bravado that he is in charge. He is fond of telling us that the buck stops with him.

Now we learn that his office has broken the confidence of members of the Immigration and Refugee board and filed complaints against suspended deputy chief Michael Schelew by releasing their names to Mr. Schelew. This is a clear violation of section 29(a) of the Privacy Act which states that confidential information may not be released for any purpose other than that for which it was collected.

The fact remains that provisions of the Privacy Act were broken. Did the justice department advise the minister to break this act? If not, will the minister tell the House specifically what the advice was that he was given by the justice department?