Debates of Dec. 13th, 1994

Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, flexible federalism means that when there is an agreement, the other government respects it. That is the basis of the good relations which should exist in Canada.

On July 19, we signed an agreement in good faith with the Government of Quebec and it was hailed as a very good agreement. The people of Saint-Jean were happy. But since a new government was elected in Quebec, there is no more agreement. If the Government of Quebec wants to abide by the agreement we signed with the previous government, there will be no problem. If it wants to reopen the issue, well, what can I say? The people of Saint-Jean will suffer the consequences.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. This morning, we heard that the government had decided to remove and not release several parts of the report of the Security Intelligence Review Committee on the disturbing Bristow case, in which CSIS not only infiltrated but actually contributed to the activities of the racist Heritage Front organization.

How can the Solicitor General, who claimed that he wanted to release all the facts on the Bristow case, justify this attempt to conceal several parts of this report? What is he trying to hide from Quebecers and Canadians?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we must not make any final decisions. I said that I wanted to release as much as I could of the SIRC report, in accordance with the appropriate legislation. We still have the entire report under review. I hope I will be able to announce a decision very shortly.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the government still claims it wants to release the facts about the disturbing allegations in the Bristow case, how can the Solicitor General explain the fact that he has yet to submit the full report to the parliamentary sub-committee on national security for consideration?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, according to the legislation governing CSIS, the report is submitted to the Solicitor General. It is therefore the Solicitor General's responsibility to decide on the best way to release the report. My responsibilities include making sure that when I release the report, I am guided by the appropriate provisions of the Privacy Act and the CSIS Act. I trust the hon. member would want me to take seriously the legislation adopted by Parliament in this respect.

Immigration And Refugee Board

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, over the past month the allegations of intimidation and artificially inflating refugee acceptance rates have been levelled at Michael Schelew and the Immigration and Refugee Board.

On November 21, Mr. Schelew was quoted as saying that he would not negotiate a severance package because he wanted exoneration. A judicial inquiry was ordered. It was called off because Mr. Schelew resigned with a $100,000 parting gift from the federal government.

Who negotiated and authorized this severance package? Will the minister make public the details of the negotiations which led to this 180 degree turn by Mr. Schelew?

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

Mr. Speaker, the ultimate decision to stop the inquiry was made by Judge Hugessen who said in his ruling that there would have been no reason or right to proceed. The deputy chair offered his resignation. Accordingly the government entertained a settlement. The settlement was conducted by government officials. The settlement in the end was in keeping and in line with standard government procedures. We believe it to be a fair settlement.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question was: Who negotiated the settlement with Mr. Schelew?

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer was included in my first response: Government officials.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us which government officials negotiated the settlement with Mr. Schelew and what his own role was in those negotiations?

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

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the negotiations were nothing untoward, nothing special. They were in keeping with normal standard procedures between government and public servants and those appointed through governor in council and no, I was not involved.

Air Safety

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

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

In a release published yesterday, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada reported serious deficiencies in the way Transport Canada handled the inspection of safety measures taken by air carriers. The board mentioned in particular major deficiencies with respect to the nature and frequency of the inspections, as well as insufficiently thorough audits and follow-ups.

Considering that safety must be his top priority, how can the minister explain that such deficiencies are allowed to continue in terms of air safety, in spite of the many recommendations put forward by Canadian control organizations? And what positive steps does he intend to take to remedy the situation within his department?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the question raised by my hon. colleague is a very serious one. We have read carefully the report of the Transportation Safety Board and taken note of its two major recommendations. First, air carriers must be subjected to much more minute inspections. Second, when faults of any kind are found in the system, there has to be a follow-up to ensure that these faults or deficiencies have been corrected.

The board's report takes into account all incidents since 1984, the latest one dating back to December 1993. We take very seriously every one of the recommendations made by the board and intend to act on them.

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

Mr. Speaker, would you kindly remind the minister that he has been in office for over 14 months now. How does he expect to be taken seriously, knowing that similar recommendations were made in the past by the Transportation Safety Board and ignored by Transport Canada?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter that we are going to pursue in this House on the basis of when the incidents occurred. Anything that has to do with the safety and security of travelling Canadians we are going to take very seriously.

The report brought in by the board yesterday identified two major problems. The first was the depth of the audit that is conducted. We have undertaken to make sure that situation is corrected. The second was the follow-up. The first incident occurred in 1984. The last one referred to by the board occurred in December 1993.

My hon. friend knows that we are doing as much as we can to maintain a climate of confidence in the transportation system in Canada. We understand the import of what was recommended by the safety board. We intend to follow through on it. I can assure my hon. friend that a hell of a lot more will be done in the next few months than in the last 10 years.

[The Speaker]

Although the word hell is not necessarily unparliamentary, perhaps we could use it a little more judiciously in the future.

Immigration And Refugee Board

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Michael Schelew might be gone from the IRB, but his presence and the presence of other like minded IRB members continues to be felt.

Within the next couple of days in Edmonton a refugee claim being made by an American woman claiming spousal abuse will be heard by a full member panel of the IRB. Hundreds of other refugee claims will be made this year by people who come from democratic nations. Surely the minister can see how ludicrous this is.

Will the minister agree to a full review of the way the IRB determines refugee status and who is eligible to make a claim in the first place?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned in this House and outside this House many times, the government is conducting a full review of its agencies, boards and commissions. Within this review is also the IRB. We have every intention of undertaking any reform or measures that would strengthen the institution.

As well, the chairperson will be moving very quickly on the commission that she had asked for some months back about the Hathaway report, about how individual members react to different situations.

I also mentioned to him during the course of question period yesterday that I will be meeting with the chair later this week so that I can also ascertain how she feels about a number of things over the last number of months which has not been easy.

If the member has ways of trying to improve the institution then count me in. If he simply wants to undercut the institution he can count me out.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the same arm's length excuse that we have heard from this minister all along but it does not wash.

This minister has the power under the Immigration Act to prevent before they begin refugee claims by people from countries like the United States, but he has chosen not to do so.

Will this minister admit that his unwillingness to stop refugee claims from the United States and Israel makes a mockery out of the IRB, his office and the country as a whole?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member criticizes me for being at arm's length. Three weeks ago they were giving lectures about how ministers have to respect independent, quasi-judicial boards. Which one is it?

The member asks whether I would deny or allow a refugee claim. That shows a profound ignorance of how refugee determination works in this country. It is not the minister or members of Parliament who adjudicate. That is why it is semi-judicial and independent, so that those adjudications may be done properly by members of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Reproductive Technologies

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

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

The Baird report made public over a year ago recommended banning the commercialization of human embryos. One year later, the minister tells us that women will have to wait another year for the government to legislate against the commercialization of human embryos.

Does the minister still intend to wait another year before stating her position on the new reproductive technologies, when commercialization of human eggs is occurring at the IVF Canada Clinic in Toronto as we speak?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. As she knows very well, these are very complex issues. I am currently working on a short term solution that should help until we can table a bill.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Health realize that her inability to present the Minister of Justice with the report he needs to prepare the necessary legislation is causing unacceptable delays favouring the growth of unregulated trade in human eggs and embryos?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, many times in this House I have spoken of the complexity of this issue and of the many jurisdictions.

I have one comment to make. I would certainly hope that the members of the Bloc Quebecois, when we do bring something forward, will speak with their provincial counterparts, the Parti Quebecois, to help us ensure that these types of practices are regulated efficiently and quickly.

Immigration And Refugee Board

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this whole Schelew affair is just the tip of the iceberg. Mr. Schelew may be gone but the fundamental problems with the IRB remain.

The board is far too vulnerable to special interests in the immigration industry. It remains unaccountable to the Canadian public and its credibility has been shaken. Friends and foes of Mr. Schelew have all been calling for a public inquiry to clear the air surrounding the IRB.

When will the minister put public interest ahead of political damage control and call an immediate, thorough and public inquiry into the workings of the IRB?