Debates of Nov. 17th, 1994

National Defence

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that additional photographic evidence exists in the matter of the torture of Somali civilians by Canadian soldiers, how can the minister claim that justice has been rendered?

What steps will he take to make sure that the evidence relating to the pending case, now in appeal, will be enriched with existing conviction documents which are in the hands of Major Armstrong?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition is a matter for the court to decide, not for me as Minister of National Defence.

As I said yesterday, if Major Armstrong or any other person in the Canadian Armed Forces has any evidence that may be germane to any one of these cases, that evidence should be made available to the military police who are conducting investigations.

One was reopened dealing with the question of photographs some time ago and the other deals with the other events related to the allegations that have been made concerning the words "cover up" or the allegations of cover up on the part of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I would invite Major Armstrong or any other person to make that evidence known and then we will let the courts decide as appropriate.

Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

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

The mayor of Saint-Jean has made public the elements of his proposal to allow a gradual transition for the military college in Saint-Jean, which would become a university-level civilian institution. He thinks that there should be a gradual transfer of all officer cadets to Kingston and that the closure should not be brutal but civilized.

Now that he has in his possession the proposal made by the mayor of Saint-Jean, which is supported by the Quebec government, does the minister still intend to reopen the discussions on the closure of the college in Saint-Jean, especially since the Kingston barracks cannot accommodate the officer cadets from Saint-Jean?

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

Mr. Speaker, the proposal made by the mayor of Saint-Jean contains two elements we agree with. First, it is essential to demilitarize the college in Saint-Jean and turn it into a co-ed institution. Second, we need a transition period.

We now have an agreement providing for a five-year transition period, a military presence of between 100 and 200 students who will take language training during the five-year period and $5 million a year for a total of $25 million over the five-year transition period.

We therefore believe that, although some of the arguments put forward by the mayor of Saint-Jean are valid, the agreement signed on July 19 by the governments of Quebec and Canada provides for a more appropriate transition period and better meets the needs of the Saint-Jean community and of keeping the college open.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said several times that the transition would occur without problems. How can the minister continue to claim that transferring the operations of the Royal Military College in Saint-Jean to Kingston will occur without problems, when only 20 of the 250 employees of the college in Saint-Jean have agreed to move to Kingston?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to forget that there are already bilingual classes as well as francophone teachers and students in Kingston. In fact, 17 per cent of Kingston's student population is French-speaking, all courses will be offered in both official languages this year, and all teachers will be bilingual within a few years. As a result, there is no problem in transferring military activities to Kingston with respect to bilingualism and the accommodation capacity.

Immigration And Refugee Board

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, over the last few weeks there have been allegations of infighting, bullying, corruption and influence peddling at the Immigration and Refugee Board. The most damning allegations now come from William Bauer, former ambassador and champion of human rights who resigned from the board in disgust in March of this year.

According to this distinguished Canadian, the independence and effectiveness of the IRB are being undermined by constant pressure from the legal lobby and advocacy groups, in other words by those who stand to profit from the system.

Does the minister accept the truth of Mr. Bauer's analysis? What is the minister's position on allowing advocacy and lobby groups, the legal lobby, to unduly influence and profit from the activities of the IRB?

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

Mr. Speaker, I responded to the leader of the Reform Party yesterday by saying that if he or any other member of his party have any evidence about any influence peddling, whether it be at the IRB or anywhere else, it is a matter for the Criminal Code. Rather than simply lobbying, he should provide evidence.

Second, the 211 members of the Immigration and Refugee Board are there to adjudicate refugee asylum cases. It is not for the minister or for members of Parliament or for NGO groups or for lawyers to unduly influence any member. They are there to do a job. They have an important mandate. It is an institution that works. It is a model that is respected internationally.

Rather than tearing down the system, we should be seeking reforms and modifications on how to make the system better and how to build up this federal institution.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bauer does not think it works. Obviously someone is profiting from the IRB process. Most immigration lawyers can earn two to three thousand dollars at least per refugee claim.

In the past the minister has appointed over 50 immigration lawyers to the IRB. Coincidentally, the acceptance rate for refugees has jumped from 55 per cent last year to approximately 80 per cent in recent months.

Will the minister tell the House whether the currently high acceptance rate of 80 per cent is a reflection of his government's policy, or is it evidence that the IRB has been captured by those interests that stand to profit from excessively high acceptance rates?

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand the narrow, vested interest of his questions and his party.

What we have to do is stand up in the public interest. In so far as the public interest is concerned, he owes the House and the public interest the evidence of those charges of profiteering and influence peddling. It is simply not good enough that he lob over these very serious accusations without backing them up.

Second, there is no policy of the Government of Canada or a minister of the crown or members on the government side with respect to what is an acceptable or non-acceptable threshold. That is not the business of government or a member of Parliament or the minister.

The individuals adjudicating who is and who is not a refugee are the members of the refugee board. That is why they are quasi-judicial and at arm's length. It is to protect it from such scurrilous allegations as we see today.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's excuses, denials and half baked measures do nothing to restore confidence in the IRB. It has gone too far for that. The allegations are too serious and too many. They range from influence peddling at the board to fraud charges being laid, even to RCMP investigations.

The minister has it within his power to order a judicial inquiry into the IRB members. Given the allegations that have come to life over the last few weeks, will the minister stop making excuses for inexcusable behaviour and order a judicial inquiry into the IRB?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member continues to make inexcusable, unfounded, serious allegations.

What do we have before us? We have before us a board chairman's report and a response from the deputy chair which will be considered. I mentioned to the leader of that party during this week that the decision will be made before the week's end. I know it does not bring him any satisfaction, but in this country we do things according to facts and due process, not jungle justice a la Reform Party.

Immigration

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I was shocked to read in the papers this morning that immigration authorities are about to deport a woman from the Seychelles Islands and her two children.

Immigration Canada refuses to take into consideration the letter of threat written by the woman's husband, who was sent back to his country, in which he says that he will kill her when she returns to the Seychelles.

Considering that the minister has released gender guidelines to protect refugee women who are victims of spousal abuse, does he not think that the death threat made to Mrs. Sabadin warrants his immediate intervention to prevent that woman and her two children from being deported to the Seychelles tomorrow, where she might be killed?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that this morning officials gave this particular woman a two week reprieve so that the review can take place to ensure ourselves and officials of the humanitarian and compassionate request. I think the hon. member should be pleased.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister guarantee that the deportation order will be quashed in the next two weeks?

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

No, I cannot guarantee that, Mr. Speaker.

One party is saying no one should come in. Another party is saying no one should leave. What we have to say is that this individual has been given a chance for a review to see if in fact those gender guideline reviews are legitimate.

I do not believe it would be very fair for any minister to guarantee anything before a review takes place.

National Defence

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on April 29, 1993 the present Minister of Human Resources Development in praising soldiers who came forward with public evidence of wrongdoing in Somalia said, and I am quoting from Hansard : ``They have taken a very courageous stand because they saw something they thought was wrong. They deserve an open inquiry''. I understand the Minister of National Defence is moving toward that position.

Will the minister not agree that the actions of Major Armstrong and others who may possess information and may be reluctant to give it to the present system are fully justified when they know that system has not acted upon information and when that system asks for the destruction of the very evidence they possess?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I do not share the assumptions upon which the question was based.

I did announce a few minutes ago that there will be an inquiry under the auspices of the National Defence Act. It will be public and will be headed by a civilian. It will be available for people such as Major Armstrong and all others to come forward with any information and any charges. Hopefully, they will be totally satisfied.

I want to make it plain that this government has nothing to hide. These are events that occurred before the 1993 election. The Minister of Human Resources Development when he was in opposition was fully justified in making those comments and calling for an open inquiry. We have done that.

What I am concerned with is to act in a way that would not prejudice the course of justice. I hope the hon. member will understand that.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister indicated there are two ongoing police investigations in addition to one suspended investigation. Yet two months ago the department's public information officers indicated there were no ongoing investigations into the Somali affair.

Why are these investigations occurring 18 months after the fact? Why is this kind of information not made public until it is raised in the House or appears in the media? Why will the minister not provide right away an open inquiry for information on this to be presented to the public?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the statement to which the hon. member referred made by public affairs officials at national defence some time ago were at that time true. Investigations have been closed, but because there had been allegations of cover-up the military police reopened one investigation. Subsequently there were charges made about photographs being concealed and another investigation was opened up to deal with that matter.

I should raise another point. I have tried to act as expeditiously as possible given the fact that we do want to protect the course of justice. I would have made this announcement yesterday, but out of courtesy to the Prime Minister who was only informed of this matter this morning, I felt I should not act until I had his agreement.

Post-Secondary Education

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. The minister's answers to questions from the Official Opposition and to claims from students, who held a demonstration yesterday on Parliament Hill, only confirmed our greatest fear, namely that he will increase the burden of students through additional loans of $10 billion, over a ten-year period. That money will be available because of cuts in transfer payments to provinces for post-secondary education.

Will the minister admit that the statement he made yesterday confirms his intention to transfer $10 billion from the federal debt to the students?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

No, Mr. Speaker, because that is not what I said.

First I have pointed out to opposition members on several occasions that the government does not intend on going back to its February budget statement to cut the transfers to the provinces. The transfer of over $6 billion is to be maintained based upon our fixed 1993-94 level. I will repeat that there are no cuts to the transfers to the provinces. The provinces will receive exactly the same amount of money, over $6 billion of transfers.

What we did suggest is that the cash portion of that which is receding at the same time the revenue of the provinces is going up to the tax revenue could be used to help lever an additional $2 billion. If you took $500 million of that savings you could almost get a four or five to one addition. We would also have a grants program to help students in need.

Rather than a $10 billion debt load it would mean we would be able to add $10 billion to the existing system's contribution to higher education for better laboratories, more classrooms, more

scholarships and more accessibility for students. That really is the choice that is being made. I would like to know why members of the opposition are against putting more money-

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, I would appeal to you once again to please keep the questions and answers a little bit shorter.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the more explaining the minister does, the more complicated it gets! The bottom line is that the minister is only offering students the possibility of incurring an additional $10 billion debt. Period.

Will the minister admit that this option, which consists in getting more into debt, is the only solution he could find to make students absorb the increase in tuition fees which will result from his reform?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the difficulty the hon. member has dealing with conflict problems. He only has simple solutions to those problems.

I would suggest to him that the best way to deal with the problems is to sit down and have a discussion. Do not go to the barricades, do not have angry protest, but sit down and share information and deal with the various options and choices. Look at the ways as a country we can bring governments together at the federal and provincial levels, we can bring members of the university community together. We can work together to find an answer, not to try to create confrontation, not to try to create disputation, but in fact to create agreement. That is the kind of process we want to provide.

If the hon. member bothered to read the various proposals in the book perhaps he would finally understand that what we want to do is rebuild this country's higher education system.