Debates of Nov. 24th, 1994

National Defence

[The Speaker]

I wonder if the hon. member would put his remarks through the Chair and would the hon. member put his question, please.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. The minister is aware that presently the lowest ranking soldier charged in the Somalia affair is convicted and in jail. This is the very individual who gave the first evidence to uncover-

[The Speaker]

I would ask that you put your question forthwith.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what specific action is the minister taking to ensure that others in the military feel free to come forward and provide evidence without fear of retribution?

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

Mr. Speaker, how clear do we have to be? There will be an open civilian inquiry and any member of the armed forces who has such information or concerns will have not only the opportunity to make those representations but the obligation to make those representations to that inquiry.

Immigration

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

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

Last Thursday, the minister granted a two-week stay of proceedings to have time to review the case of Mrs. Sabadin and her two children. If he does not revise his decision, Mrs. Sabadin and her two children will be deported to the Seychelles, where her husband has threatened to kill her as soon as she returns.

Three days before deciding to stay deportation proceedings, the minister wrote me the following, and I quote: "I have personally reviewed Mrs. Sabadin's case. This review has revealed no overriding reasons that would justify taking exceptional measures". Why did the minister change his mind three days later?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be inappropriate to delve into the specifics of one case. However, I think the hon. member should know, because one of his colleagues asked the question some time ago, that the decision was to stay the deportation so that a proper and full review may be conducted.

The member and his colleague have been asking if I would basically prejudice that review and make a guarantee on the basis of how that review would go. I think that would be an inappropriate action for a minister of the crown.

Second, let us allow the review to properly function. We have as good a system as anywhere in the international community. If new evidence is brought forward that will be dealt with accordingly.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister agree he made a serious mistake in the case of Mrs. Sabadin and why will he not admit there are overriding humanitarian grounds for immediately cancelling the deportation order?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why members of that party continue to put down a generous progressive system in this country.

The individual in question applied for humanitarian and compassionate consideration. That consideration was extended. That extension is now undergoing a full review of this individual's case. Now this member is trying to somehow say that the system or the government is doing the wrong thing.

The system is proceeding well. The system is compassionate and it is time we say so instead of always running a Canadian system into the ground which it clearly does not deserve.

Government Of Canada

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this government promised Canadians that it would do things differently but after only one year I cannot really tell the difference between it and the Mulroney government.

The president of CN has received a $300,000 interest free loan to live in style in Westmount courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer. The National Capital Commission, which has already rifled the public purse for its chairman's social club dues, is spending $2 million on office renovations, and Liberals across the country are lining up for patronage appointments.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. When will these lavish expenditures stop and when will this government realize that it is not its money that it is spending?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, if she cannot tell the difference between this government and the Mulroney government she clearly needs glasses. Maybe the glasses would help her to see that this government is taking every measure in its first year in office to ensure the cost effectiveness, the efficiency of the programs and the spending of taxpayers' dollars.

We will not tolerate the inefficiencies. We will not tolerate the wasteful spending of the previous federal government. That is what this government is committed to doing.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I was here at the beginning of the last Parliament, the Tories were high in the polls too. This first year is over.

When the president of CN was asked about possibly ending a few of his lavish perks, he responded: "Are you saying that as a result of downsizing all of us in the executive ranks should reduce our compensation by 10, 15 or 20 per cent?" You bet, that is exactly what we are saying and we proposed that this morning to the finance committee.

When will this government start to lead by example and not lead by the nose?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the example could be set by her leader. He might want to cut out the clothing allowance and save some money over there.

This government is reviewing the programs and the services that are offered to Canadians because we know that we have to make our programs efficient and effective to be able to reach the 3 per cent of GDP target which is our target to bring down the deficit and to make sure that we have affordable and responsive programs and services to the people of this country.

Refugees

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

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

The Hong Kong government has admitted that 142 Vietnamese refugees were injured in a forced repatriation operation at the end of September. There is also a proven risk to the safety of these refugees returning to Vietnam.

Could the minister inform us of what actions the Canadian government is taking to ensure the fair treatment and safety of Vietnamese refugees in southeast Asia?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

The House should know that in 1989 with respect to the Indo-Chinese refugee crisis, the international community came together and signed a comprehensive plan of action to which Canada was a signatory and continues to be a member of the steering committee.

There were two obligations under the United Nations for that comprehensive action plan. One was to repatriate those found not to be convention refugees back to Vietnam and, second, for those who were found to be convention refugees to resettle them abroad.

On the latter, since 1989 Canada has accepted some 20,000 individuals. All screening and all repatriation is done under the auspices of the United Nations. Generally it could be said to have been a very worth while and very successful international comprehensive plan that has repatriated safely from 60,000 Indo-Chinese refugees back to Vietnam.

Indian Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs. The price of food in remote areas of Northern Quebec and the Northwest Territories is so high that it is practically impossible for residents, most of whom are Inuit, to eat properly. Today, an Inuit in the far north pays twice as much for the same basket of groceries as we do here in the south, while his average income is much lower.

Could the Minister of Indian Affairs explain why, despite the fact that $14 million is spent annually on subsidizing the distribution of food in the far north, a person who lives in that area always has to pay twice as much for his food as people in the south?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, once again I totally agree with my friend. He has a perception of my portfolio that I sometimes find lacking in other members of this House.

He has pointed out the cost of food mail. A gallon of milk in Nunavut is $12. There is nutrition that does not exist. We have $14 million in food mail. I do not think it is enough and I for one will fight within my ministry and other ministries to improve that.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Increase spending.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

That's right, spend more.

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Go and see for yourselves instead of sitting here making smart remarks. The issue is not so much self-government in Nunavut. It is bringing education, it is handling 14-year old children who have children, it is bringing nutrition, it is bringing the future and that is what we are committed to.

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

Mr. Speaker, one wonders whether the minister saw my question beforehand, because he used exactly the same example I will give you now.

How can the minister accept the fact that an Inuit has to pay up to $12 for 3 litres of milk in the far north, while his department is still looking into the matter instead of coming up with some answers?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I started off this term hoping that I would turn my hon. friend into a lovable and committed federalist. Since he is using my answers for questions, I think I am 60 per cent there.

Air Atlantic

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

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

Air Atlantic creditors vote on Monday to determine whether they will accept the company's restructuring proposal or be forced into bankruptcy. Apparently most of the creditors are in agreement with the restructuring proposal and have declared so. The sole exception is the Government of Canada that has not given its public indication of its position. Rejection of the restructuring proposal means the bankruptcy of the company.

Will the Minister of Industry today please advise the House and through this House the employees and creditors of the position of the Government of Canada to the restructuring proposal.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question because it gives me an opportunity to make clear that first of all Industry Canada is really an insurer of certain of the debt which is involved in this transaction. The creditors themselves have a vote. Industry Canada will not be voting with respect to it.

I have directed my officials to retain a neutral position on the proposal because I believe that it should be examined by the creditors with a view to its commercial viability. That is the test they should apply in their own best interests. If that test passes then we will be happy to see the airline continue on the basis of the proposal.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Minister of Industry for his frank and forthright answer. I am very pleased indeed that the minister will take a neutral position.

Does this mean that the creditors will have sole discretion as to their vote on the restructuring proposal without interference by a government official or a representative of the department?