Debates of Sept. 30th, 1994

Canadian Unity

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding effort of Mr. Michael Szelag from Hamilton Ontario to promote Canadian unity.

Mike started out in St. John's, Newfoundland on August 9 this year for a 33 day, 7,000 kilometre bicycle ride to Victoria, B.C. During his travels Mike presented for signature a proclamation to Canada to the mayors of each city he passed through. He was enthusiastically received without exception. He commented that his reception in Quebec was outstanding.

The proclamation reads:

Our desire is strong Our commitment is strong Our understanding is the result of experience Our contribution will continue Our goodwill will lead us Our faith will guide us We will remain one people

I am sure members will join with me in a tribute to Mike for his tremendous contribution to Canadian unity.

Canadian Flag

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is very diverse from east to west and from north to south and each and every area is significant and important.

Recently while promoting patriotism in my constituency of Carleton-Charlotte by encouraging the use of our national anthem and the display of our Canadian flag, I discovered one of Canada's best kept secrets. I refer to the pledge of allegiance to the Canadian flag. For all members of this House and indeed for all Canadians, I will recite this pledge today and encourage its use.

To my flag and to the country it represents, I pledge respect and loyalty. Wave with pride from sea to sea and within your folds, keep us ever united. Be for all a symbol of love, freedom and justice. God keep our flag. God protect our Canada.

Human Rights

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Rosedale is a complex urban riding with a diverse social structure. As in most parts of Canada today, the people who live in it know that the health and well-being of their community depend upon an open, tolerant and pluralistic society in which discrimination against fellow citizens is not permitted and everyone is treated with mutual respect.

It is for that reason among others that I support Bill C-41 and welcome the statements of the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Prime Minister that the government will introduce legislation amending Canada's human rights act to prohibit discrimination against persons based upon their sexual orientation.

This is not a question of creating special status for anyone; it is a matter of ensuring that all Canadians are treated equitably under the same circumstances. We must apply this principle of fairness to all members of the Canadian population if we are to guarantee their rights as individuals as well as our own development as a progressive and modern society.

Neighbouring Rights

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since 1988 certain communications experts within what is now the Department of Canadian Heritage have talked about the concept of neighbouring rights. That is a form of copyright payment imposed on radio broadcasters to be paid to recording artists and producers.

Other experts admit that 68 per cent of blank cassettes sold are used for reproducing existing recordings which are legally sold in retail outlets. In this age of user pay let those who are bending existing copyright laws, that is the purchasers of blank cassettes, pay an artist's fee. Business, that is the big and small radio stations in this country, once again should not be required to pay. Without radio stations there is no recording industry or artist showplace. Without radio stations our sense of community surely diminishes.

Société Pour Vaincre La Pollution

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the Minister of the Environment made some very uncalled for remarks with regard to an environmentalist group in Quebec, the "Société pour vaincre la pollution", which she referred to by its acronym, SVP.

SVP has been active in the environmental area for 15 years now. Like many other groups of its kind, it is on somewhat shaky financial ground. For the minister to declare that the restricted financial means of that group is a discrediting factor in the eyes of the public and of the scientific community is totally unspeakable.

Furthermore, the minister's data were inaccurate because, as one can see in the last issue of the prestigious magazine, National Geographic, the SVP group is still very much active. Such unfounded judgments on a Quebec environmentalist organization are unworthy of someone in a ministerial position.

The Debt

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, fall is in the air and the redness of the leaves is eclipsed only by this government's balance sheet. As of this morning Canada was in debt to the tune of $532,444,756,445.36. That is $18,718.40 for every person in Canada, or $37,879.22 for every taxpayer. By the time it takes me to read this statement the debt will have grown by $88,410.

This government says it is concerned about the debt, but I remind the House that it was the Liberal Party in the 1970s and 1980s that sold Canada's future to pay for whatever spending was needed to get it re-elected. The Conservatives finished the job because they did not have the guts to kick the deficit habit.

It is the Liberals who have sold us and our children to our creditors.

Federal Business Development Bank

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago today Parliament officially proclaimed the creation of the Industrial Development Bank, the forerunner of today's Federal Business Development Bank. This was to assist in the smooth transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy with particular consideration to the financing problems of small business.

Throughout the years the FBDB has addressed the evolving needs of small business by introducing innovative financial and management services. Not only was the bank the first to introduce term loans to the Canadian small business sector but it was among the first to offer small business management assistance through counselling and training courses. In addition, it became the first national source of venture capital.

The bank has proven to be instrumental in building successful businesses while at the same time not being a drain on the government. In fact over the past five years it has received no funds from the government for its lending activities and has loaned out some $3.4 billion to small and medium size entrepreneurs.

With its unique array of services, the bank continues to be ideally positioned to help businesses grow and create jobs. In fact approximately one in every five businesses in Canada has at some point turned to the FBDB for assistance.

On behalf of the House and the small business sector, I would like to congratulate the FBDB as it celebrates its anniversary. I support the continuing efforts of the FBDB.

Ed Carter-Edwards

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ed Carter-Edwards, a resident of Bala in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Mr. Carter-Edwards, a veteran of World War II, was the driving force behind the recent CBC special called the "Lucky Ones: Allied Airmen and Buchenwald".

Ed Carter-Edwards was one of the lucky ones because he survived a nightmare during the war. He was one of 168 allied flyers, including 26 Canadians, who were shot down over Nazi occupied Europe and sent to the brutal Buchenwald death camp.

Instead of being sent to a prisoner of war camp, Mr. Carter-Edwards and his fellow flyers spent three horrifying months in the concentration camp. They lived in fear and terror, witnessing many inhumane acts. Thanks to Mr. Carter-Edwards this untold story is now on the record to be shared by all Canadians.

Canadians owe the men and women who fought in World War II a large debt for their personal sacrifices and courage. I am proud to have Ed Carter-Edwards as a constituent in my riding.

Punjab

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, following a recent visit to India I wish to inform fellow Canadians of the troubled situation which still exists in the province of Punjab.

While efforts have been made to ease tensions and the death toll is down considerably, the situation unfortunately is still not normal. Police excesses continue. Equally worrisome is the lack of any commitment toward achieving a lasting peace and restoring law and order.

I hope that Canada will encourage the Indian government to accept independent international human rights groups to visit the Punjab.

I also hope that the Indian government will take concrete steps to engage in dialogue with representatives of various political groups to achieve a peaceful solution.

World Habitat Day

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House that Monday, October 3 is World Habitat Day. In this International Year of the Family the celebration of World Habitat Day by the United Nations is even more significant.

It is important to recognize that more and more families around the world are living in substandard housing conditions. The need for adequate shelter is not only a basic human right but necessary for the well-being of all world citizens.

As members of this House, we can facilitate the promotion of public awareness about housing by celebrating World Habitat Day in our individual ridings.

1992 Referendum

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members were relieved to learn last night that the federal government had finally agreed to compensate the Government of Quebec for its 1992 referendum expenses.

We have lost track of the number of questions the Official Opposition asked since January as to whether the present Prime Minister intended to keep the promise made by his predecessor. The sovereignist members have succeeded in shaking this government out of its malevolent torpor concerning Quebec issues.

We might add that there is a phantom looming behind the whole story. While the Bloc members had been pressuring the government for a week, the member for Sherbrooke waited until the very last minute to inform the House that, as far as he was aware, the former Prime Minister had made a solemn pledge a long time ago.

I dare ask the phantom of the House: "Where have you been for the past 18 months, since March 1993?"

National Unity

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, several months ago our party submitted 20 very specific questions to the Prime Minister concerning what action his government planned to take on the issue of Canadian unity. To date the Prime Minister has failed to respond to any of these questions.

Obviously the Prime Minister is subtly continuing his do nothing policy, or more likely just does not have the answers. If the latter is indeed true, may we suggest that the Prime Minister do like other concerned Canadians and tune into his local cable channel on Monday, October 3 for Reform's national unity electronic town hall meeting.

During the show Canadians will have the opportunity to answer three direction questions on the future of Canada. This historic event will give Canadians an opportunity to express their views on this important issue. It will give the Prime Minister an opportunity to see that his do nothing policy is not acceptable to Canadians.

Merchant Navy

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to bring attention to and salute the great veterans of our merchant navy, the merchant seamen.

This great country of ours, Canada, has always recognized the contribution of our citizens in time of war and has given just compensation for services rendered.

During the war, the merchant navy served under some of the most dangerous conditions and hostile weather. However they have not been fully recognized for their role in the war.

These veterans have not been provided with the status due to them and promised to them. While our country was generous enough to compensate Japanese Canadians who were interned during the war, we have turned our backs on these brave members of the merchant navy. They have even been denied their former part in placing a wreath in remembrance at the National War Memorial this year.

I say: Canada, it is time to provide just rewards to these brave Canadians who risked their lives so we could live ours in freedom.

Bill C-41

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister of Justice for including provisions in Bill C-41 which ensure that individuals convicted of an offence motivated by the sexual orientation of the victim automatically receive a sentence of aggravating circumstances in addition to their original sentence.

I go on record as supporting the inclusion of sexual orientation in the sentencing provisions contained in Bill C-41. Crimes motivated by the sexual orientation of the victim must not be tolerated. As Canadians we cannot claim to support the protection and promotion of individual human rights if we do not oppose hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation is as much a matter of individuality as any other freedom we enjoy in Canada. As such it should be protected under Canadian law.

1992 Referendum

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, in an attempt to confirm Robert Bourassa's version of the facts regarding reimbursement to Quebec for the expenses incurred in the referendum on the Charlottetown Accord, the Prime Minister had a telephone conversation with Mr. Mulroney. In the account of this conversation he gave this House on Wednesday, the Prime Minister stated, and I quote: "I called Mr. Mulroney, who did not give me an answer".

How can the Prime Minister reconcile the statement he made before this House on Wednesday with the now established fact that Mr. Mulroney fully briefed him on Tuesday on all that was said between himself and Mr. Bourassa?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend we contacted several persons to make sure we got all the facts. We had the privilege of speaking with Mr. Harcourt, calls were made to Mr. Bourassa, and I personally spoke with Premier Bob Rae. I also called Mr. Mulroney. Our brief conversation did not satisfy me and we agreed that the best thing would be for him to send me a written statement.

When one has a $34-million decision to make involving taxpayers' money in a matter one did not handle, which had been on the table for a long time and involving discussions to which one was not privy, as a Prime Minister one must make sure that all the facts are in the open and quite clear.

I reviewed the matter and on Tuesday consulted the cabinet and was authorized to act with the permission of Treasury Board. When the documentation was received I was not in the House myself, having been held up with the president of Tanzania. I was informed at 3.05 p.m. yesterday that the written communication had come in.

I authorized my minister to take the necessary steps to make headway with this matter, but I acted cautiously because it involved taxpayers' money and was a matter that was not really the responsibility of this government. It had been dragging on for some time and we did not have the proof required to authorize payment. Once proof was received, we authorized it. It is that simple.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I bring the Prime Minister back to the central issue. This Prime Minister said in this House that there was no answer from Mr. Mulroney, although yesterday Mr. Mulroney reported all the facts in a letter to the Prime Minister, saying that these facts were conveyed to the current Prime Minister during Tuesday's telephone conversation. There is a flagrant contradiction.

The least that can be said is that the Prime Minister's memory of his talk with Mr. Mulroney is as bad as his recollection of his recent telephone call to Mr. Parizeau.

Does the Prime Minister not agree that yesterday's letter from Mr. Mulroney formally contradicts what he said Wednesday in this House, namely that there had been no answer from Mr. Mulroney?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I said in this House that I had discussed the problem with Mr. Mulroney. I had not received a satisfactory answer from Mr. Mulroney at that time. I told him that I had sent him a letter and he told me that he would answer. We discussed the matter but I was waiting for his written reply. I never said that I had not talked about it with Mr. Mulroney. On the contrary, I informed the House that I had spoken with Mr. Mulroney.

Furthermore, he told me that he would send me an official reply. During our discussion, he told me certain things. Was I satisfied with his answer? Was it enough? I do not think so. But I had enough after I had spoken with and received information from Mr. Harcourt, who was involved in the discussions in Charlottetown, as were Mr. Rae and Mr. Bourassa, and after I had reviewed the whole matter.

The letter itself is not absolutely clear. It was only after reviewing the whole matter that I concluded that there was

indeed a commitment and that Mr. Bourassa had received a commitment from the then Prime Minister. I took precautions.

As I said earlier, on Tuesday, I discussed the matter hypothetically in Cabinet, saying in effect, if we receive some information confirming all of this, can I go ahead? The Cabinet did give me the go-ahead; as for the amount of money, it was set, as required by Cabinet, by Treasury Board, which sat yesterday afternoon. It always sits on Thursday afternoon.

I myself was notified of Mr. Mulroney's letter or of Mr. Shortliffe's telegram giving us Mr. Mulroney's version, and we accepted it. It is no more complicated than that.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, beyond the question which has now been settled, the payment of what is owed to Quebec, there is a serious question concerning the proper behaviour of a Prime Minister in telling this House the truth. Nothing should prevent this House from knowing the facts. This House was told by the Prime Minister that he had no answer from Mr. Mulroney, when we know today that he had a complete answer, the same answer which was the basis of his decision yesterday to pay.

Does the Prime Minister realize that his statement that he had received no answer from Mr. Mulroney was likely to mislead the opposition and prevent it from getting to the bottom of this issue as it should?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I myself answered all the questions I was asked on this subject in this House. I have just explained clearly that it involved $34 million of Canadian taxpayers' money, as a result of the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the federal government had made a commitment.

I took the necessary action to find out if there was a commitment from the federal government. He would have been the first to criticize me if I had acted on mere hearsay. I did what was necessary to assure myself that we could act as soon as possible with all the information in hand. A prime minister must act in such a prudent fashion. I acted with caution, as a reasonable man would.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday during Question Period, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs were obviously not aware that a written answer had been received from Mr. Mulroney. Yet, that answer had already arrived.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that he kept his Deputy Prime Minister and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in the dark, since Mr. Mulroney's letter had already reached his office around 1.30 p.m., before Question Period?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I could not inform the Deputy Prime Minister, since I was only told about that letter at 3.05 p.m. I decided not to show up for Question Period because my meeting with the Prime Minister of Tanzania took longer than expected. The letter was sent to my office but I was not there; I was at home. I was informed about it by telephone at 3.05 p.m. Obviously I could not tell the Minister of the Environment at 2 p.m. about something I received at 3.05 p.m. My office received a letter at 1.55 p.m., but I was not there. I am being criticized for not reading a letter which arrived in my office across the street, and not at my office here. I was not in my office. I am therefore being criticized for not having read a letter I had not seen.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Do you not have a fax machine?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

I did not send that letter. It is up to the sender to make sure the letter reaches its recipient. I did not receive that letter. Since when do we blame people for not having a letter they did not receive? I received that letter at 3.05 p.m. and the issue was settled two hours later. This shows how efficient our government is.

This morning I was expecting the Leader of the Opposition and other MPs to congratulate the government for taking swift action and making the right decision. I am surprised at how partisan they can be.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister is not here, it is customary for the Deputy Prime Minister to answer on his behalf.

Does the Prime Minister recognize that by acting as they did the senior officials in the PMO and the Privy Council kept the Deputy Prime Minister in the dark and prevented her from accurately answering the questions asked by the opposition? Does the Prime Minister of Canada think he acted as a prudent man should?