Debates of Nov. 15th, 1994

Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two things we should remember. First, keeping the Collège de Saint-Jean open unnecessarily will cost taxpayers $23 million annually. This means that three years will cost taxpayers nearly $70 million.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

That is not true!

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Second, we now have an agreement with the Government of Quebec to keep the Collège de Saint-Jean open as a civilian institution. That is the agreement we have now and the agreement we want to implement.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that existing facilities at Kingston cannot absorb an increase in the number of cadets from 600 to 1,200, which will be the case as a result of closing the colleges at Saint-Jean and Victoria.

Why does he fail to see there is much to be said for agreeing to the moratorium proposed by the mayor of Saint-Jean?

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

Mr. Speaker, according to the plans that have already been made to accommodate 300 additional students in Kingston, we can use the barracks at CFB Kingston that are now vacant, so that the cost is minimal, and three years from now, we will be back to 900 students.

Consequently, in the circumstances it makes sense to concentrate students in Kingston. Since the army has been downsized, we no longer need three colleges, and we should now use all the resources available at the college in Kingston, which is the only one we need.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a clear pattern in the federal government's concept of the kind of educational institution that should be made available to francophones in Kingston. It means barracks for the francophone cadets who will leave Saint-Jean and barracks and washrooms across the street for students at the Marie-Rivier school. It is a pattern we certainly do not appreciate.

Before we reach the point of no return, I want to ask the minister whether he agrees he should show some flexibility and take this opportunity to declare a moratorium of at least one year. Does he realize that many people in Quebec and Canada expect him to accept the truce proposed by the Official Opposition today and take the time to start a constructive dialogue with the parties concerned?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is right to say it is time for a truce, for common sense and compromise. Well, we already have a compromise. We reached a compromise with the Government of Quebec. We have an agreement that provides for some military presence on the campus of Saint-Jean and for the continuation of the Collège de Saint-Jean.

Here is the agreement. It was signed by Daniel Johnson, the Premier of Quebec at the time. We have an agreement, and I suggest the opposition let us implement that agreement.

Mil Davie Shipyard

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while the government is still in the process of making up its mind in the matter of the construction of the Magdalen Islands ferry, it was announced that 300 MIL Davie workers will be laid off on Friday. These 300 workers will join the ranks of the 200 who were recently laid off. It should be pointed out that, in 1992, the shipyard employed over 3,700 workers; by Christmas, only 400 will be left.

Does the Minister of Transport recognize that with the laying-off of an additional 300 workers, it becomes urgent for the government to make up its mind if the last major shipyard in Quebec is to survive?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again today tries to imply that there is only one aspect to the problems facing the MIL Davie shipyard, that being whether or not it can acquire a contract to construct a ferry.

If the member would do his homework he would realize that contingent upon approval of a business plan by the shareholder of MIL Davie and contingent upon the co-operation of the labour unions at MIL Davie possibly some transition contracts might be helpful but not necessarily so.

To try to focus the future of MIL Davie on one contract demonstrates a very weak understanding of the complexity of the problems facing that shipyard.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Industry hide behind the MIL Davie business plan to justify his lack of action when the Quebec government is asking him, in writing, to become financially involved in the construction of the Magdalen Islands ferry?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the rationale for a member, an elected representative of the House of Commons and thereby shared trustee of the public's moneys, saying that we are hiding behind the requirement of a business plan before investing public money in a private enterprise which is owned by a shareholder, that is the Government of Quebec.

Let us get realistic about where the solutions lie for this company and other companies that face the problems of adjusting to the changes occurring in the world. That company like others will survive because it becomes competitive and because

it produces a product the world is willing to buy, not because somebody hands out a contract to tide it over.

Let us address the real problems and then maybe we can find real solutions.

Immigration And Refugee Board

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, from all accounts members of the Immigration and Refugee Board can be divided into at least two camps: the Tory appointments led by the chair of the committee, Ms. Mawani, and the Liberal appointments headed by the minister's friend, Mr. Schelew.

Documents have been leaked; confidential conversations have been released; and the Privacy Act has been thrown out the window. All this turmoil at the IRB is the result of an appointment system rife with patronage and political infighting.

My question is for the minister. Will the minister now admit that the IRB should be completely freed from political patronage? Will he establish a more credible process for dealing with immigrant and refugee applications?

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

Mr. Speaker, our government has indeed made a lot of appointments with credibility, with experience and with integrity, to the point where the press secretary to the leader of the Reform Party was quoted as saying in The Toronto Star earlier this year: ``A lot of Canadians will be pleased to see this point on appointments is a promise from the election that has been kept, to make appointments on merit rather than on political connections''.

The system however is far from perfect. We have suggested a number of reforms that are currently before the agency and program review process headed by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. If the Leader of the Opposition has further recommendations we would be pleased to hear them.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us discuss one particular appointment then. The minister's friend, Mr. Schelew, is accused of bullying board members into making decisions which were against their best judgment. Then when an investigation is proposed he attempts to influence his accusers with information released by the minister's own department.

Surely this is grounds for the dismissal of this particular appointee. Will the minister now ask for his friend's resignation, or does he condone this type of behaviour on behalf of his own appointees?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are being absolutely open in following the process. When I received the allegations I did not cover them up; I did not hide. I gave them to the chair of the refugee board and asked her to review them appropriately.

I am now in receipt of a report given to me by the chair recommending a certain course. I have requested and obtained a response from the deputy chair to those recommendations. Before the end of the week we will make a decision based on the facts and what is appropriate.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are problems with the application of the Privacy Act in the minister's own office.

Yesterday the justice minister said that he could not release the details of his official's advice to the minister of immigration on the Schelew affair because: "It is not the practice of the Department of Justice to disclose publicly the advice that it gives to client departments". It seems however that the immigration department practice is to release confidential advice at the drop of a hat, especially when the hat belongs to the minister's friend.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Are there two standards of privacy in the country; one for the protection of ministers of the crown and another for the protection of ordinary Canadian citizens?

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

Mr. Speaker, I simply reject out of hand the inflammatory, biased and unsubstantiated allegations that the member opposite has just made.

The names were released by a justice lawyer to the lawyer of the deputy chair. Advice was sought from the legal branch of the Department of Justice. That advice was received and the action was in full accordance with the law.

Shipyards

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

In 1986, the federal government asked Quebec to rationalize its shipyard activities. Ninety per cent of the rationalization of shipyards in Canada has taken place in Quebec, with 1,700 jobs lost when Versatile Vickers in Montreal and Marine Industries in Sorel closed down.

Are we to interpret Ottawa's failure to act on the issue of a ferry for the islands as a wish to finish the job started in the 1980s and to deliberately bring about the closing of the last great shipyard in Quebec?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from the Bloc Quebecois just exactly what plans the shareholder of MIL Davie has for its shipyards. I can tell him that I have been working both with Mr. Véronneau, president of MIL Davie, as well as with the previous government to find a solution to the problems confronting MIL Davie.

They will not be solved, as I said to the previous questioner, by simply finding one contract to give on one day. If that were the solution for this company's problems they would have been solved long ago because there has been a series of contracts awarded to that company.

The challenge for MIL Davie, as with much of the rest of the Canadian manufacturing sector, is to become competitive in a world in which manufacturing, particularly of ships, is global. The Canadian domestic market is not large enough to support a shipyard by itself and therefore they must be competitive.

If we can address that challenge we will succeed both at MIL Davie and elsewhere. That is the fundamental challenge and it will not be simply solved by awarding a single contract.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. If we follow the minister's logic, he has just announced the closure of MIL Davie. My supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. Are we to understand that the Minister of Transport has recently decided to transfer the question of the ferry to his colleague, the Minister of Industry, in an attempt to cover up his strategy of closing MIL Davie to the benefit of St. John Shipbuilding in his province?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we have been trying for several months now to explain to the opposition members that the situation regarding the ferry between the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island must be worked out between Transport Canada and the operator of the service, who receives an annual subsidy to provide ferry services to those wishing to use them.

As far as MIL Davie and the construction of a ship is concerned, this is related to industry, to the creation of jobs in Quebec. The difference between the two issues is easily understood. I hope that with time, possibly in a year or two, the distinction will become clear to my hon. colleagues from the Bloc.

Immigration And Refugee Board

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of immigration promised that he would decide what to do with his friend Mr. Schelew no later than yesterday. Yesterday passed and no action was taken apart from the release of the names of the accusers to Mr. Schelew.

This minister has known about the situation since September. Has the minister delayed taking action for so long in order to give Schelew an opportunity to persuade board members to drop their complaints?

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

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is absolutely not.

I requested the deputy chair to respond to the chair's report. I received that response in my office late Thursday. I read the response only late Friday night.

I made no such promises that any decision would be made by Monday. I have the report of the chair and an extensive response to that report. I am reflecting and taking advice carefully and will be making a decision by the end of the week.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the confidential report made against Schelew chronicles months of intimidation and veiled threats, references to a friendship between the minister and Schelew, Schelew telling members to ignore lies that refugee claimants tell because "everybody lies".

This minister has let Tory appointees like Greg Fyffe go from the board for no reason at all. Why has he chosen to protect Schelew at the expense of individual board members and the integrity of the entire refugee process?

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

Mr. Speaker, rather than addressing the facts of the matter this member prefers to politically exploit this situation.

I say to the member once again that I asked for the review by the chair and she has given me her report. I have asked through a lawyer of justice for the deputy chair to respond to the recommendation and the appropriateness.

I have been seized of both those documents. I am reflecting on the evidence contained in both and then we will make a decision. It is as simple as that. I am sorry to disappoint the member but it is very simple, very straightforward and no one is hiding anything.