Debates of Oct. 4th, 1995

Industry Canada

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

Mr. Speaker, the only communication between myself and Oerlikon has been one letter in which I forwarded to them, with General Motors' permission, a letter from GM stating that there would be discussions between the two companies to see whether it would be possible for Oerlikon to take part in the General Motors contracts.

That is all there was to it, and the allegations of the opposition are once again based on dreaming, obviously in technicolour, and without any basis in fact.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no, the dreams were in black and white, a printed black and white document from the Department of Industry, a secret document. He might read it from time to time. It would be helpful to us if he took time off from his dreaming to read something once in a while. How can the minister explain that Ottawa continues to put off clarifying its intentions concerning the regional benefits of the contract to purchase armoured vehicles, while as long ago as March Oerlikon was being clearly identified in a secret Industry Canada document as a possible subcontractor for the tank turrets?

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

Mr. Speaker, once again the opposition is mixing all kinds of issues together. Oerlikon and General Motors will be discussing their plans to perhaps enable Oerlikon to obtain subcontracts from General Motors.

But to give you a an idea of what is really in the Department of Industry document referred to, I will read you some excerpts. For example, in the aeronautics sector, what the "secret" Department of Industry document says is as follows: The generally stable climate and the availability of funding programs are what have been responsible for the industry's continued growth. The threat of separation might offer the companies an opportunity for out of province consolidation and restructuring.

That is what the document has to say about companies in the aeronautical sector. I might mention other sectors, but the conclusion is that this document states very clearly that separation will cost Quebecers dearly in all of the province's industrial sectors.

National Defence

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the destruction of the two videotapes by Colonel Kenward is clear evidence of a violation or an obstruction of justice.

Colonel Kenward's promotion is an exoneration of wrongdoing determined by the most senior members of our military and viewed by many as a cover-up. Clearly an external inquiry into the operation of the entire military apparatus beyond the mandate of the present hearings is justified to reassure Canadians that the integrity of our military is beyond question and functioning within the confines of law.

Will the Prime Minister authorize such a broad and all encompassing inquiry?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the issue of promotion of the officer in question, I have to tell the hon. member and the House there is a system in place that has existed for 43 years.

That system essentially is that the chief of the defence staff is responsible for promoting officers and non-commissioned ranks up to the rank of colonel. The minister is responsible for all general officers' promotions.

The system is in place to prevent political interference. It works and it worked on this occasion. If the hon. member is suggesting that we politicize the system of promotion then I suggest he is suggesting the wrong thing. The Canadian forces would not agree. The House would not approve it and the Canadian public would be appalled.

He would be the first one to scream if this were the case and I would be there to join him.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is another incident of preferential treatment under the law for certain Canadians. The destruction of evidence by Colonel Kenward is clearly a violation of the law. His exoneration by military brass rather than through due process places our rule of law in disrepute.

Could the Prime Minister explain to the House why this senior military officer was promoted rather than held accountable for his actions? Why do we not all stand equal before the law?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member in asking questions to make sure he has his facts correct.

I remind the House of something that came out yesterday. Had he watched the press conference by the chief of the defence staff, he may have discovered that he was not entirely correct in his question.

The senior judge in the Canadian forces, the judge advocate general, on the recommendation of the chief of the defence staff and the commander of land forces, did a special inquiry and concluded that the officer in question did nothing illegal.

With respect to being open, I have to tell the hon. member who talked about destroyed tapes that these were copies. The original tape is now answering to our question and a previous question about transparency.

In addition to all the things the Prime Minister and I mentioned, the particular tape is also available to the commission of inquiry.

Industry Canada

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

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

The secret document intended for Operation Unity reveals that top executives at CAE Electronics, a subsidiary of the parent company in Toronto, strongly support federalism in private. It also indicates that they will publicly follow in the footsteps of their Bombardier and Marconi counterparts.

Can the minister, who is obviously well aware of the referendum position of potential government contractors, tell us what contract he has set aside for CAE Electronics should its executives come out publicly in favour of the No side?

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

Mr. Speaker, the opposition is repeating-in the hope of making it come true-the allegation that there is a link between the analysis of various industrial sectors in the Industry Canada document and federal subsidies to these industries.

There is clearly no link between the two. What the report correctly describes is the fact that a great many Quebec industries are dependent on various federal subsidies and that if Quebec separates from the rest of Canada, many Quebec businesses will go bankrupt. That is simple. That is clear. That is transparent.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how does the minister explain the fact that this document clearly identifies CAE Electronics as the only potential contractor in Quebec for the maintenance of the four used British submarines, which the government is about to acquire at a cost of over $1 billion?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should wait until we buy them before deciding who will maintain them.

The Environment

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has accused the Alberta environment minister of racism.

What he actually said was: "If there's something like the expansion of the ski hill in a national park, that's your jurisdiction, not mine. And if it's something on an Indian reserve, that yours, not

mine-If we're not going to work in the spirit of trust and co-operation we've got a major problem".

We have a major problem. When will this minister apologize to Ty Lund for her misrepresentation of his remarks?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, in June Ty Lund gave an interview to Vicki Barnett of a newspaper in Alberta in which he said, and this is his quote in June in reference to the meeting that took place: "Referring to federal minister Copps, Lund said, Come on, lady, if you want to come to Alberta and see what's happening with Indian reserves and logging, we would have had it shut down and charged them a long time ago. Where have you been? In our last meeting with Sheila Copps-she's an interesting lady-she was giving me the gears for trying to get into a harmonization. She sput and sputtered about that one and she said to me,You don't look after our lands'. Lund is leading the charge which would see the province have complete responsibility for Alberta land while Ottawa would oversee national parks and Indian reserves".

Those were the comments of Mr. Lund in a newspaper interview in June.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

So what?

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Apologize.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, those comments are absolutely true. That is the jurisdiction of the federal government. Why does she not live up to it and make sure it is abided by?

She accuses the provincial minister of saying this and exactly this: "You can have the national parks and the Indians. We want to look after all the rest". That simply is not true. He did not say that. Regardless of what comments may have been taken out of context in that news article, why will she not-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I read from a transcript, not a newspaper article.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Table it.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

When will the minister admit that is simply not what he said and when will she retract these remarks and get these talks back on track?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the other day the member claimed that I had misrepresented the views of Mr. Lund. Mr. Lund has never denied making the remarks at a private meeting with nine other ministers at which I heard very specifically the comments he made.

It is a sad day when the member for Beaver River gets up in the House and repeats the position of the Alberta government that the Government of Canada has no place in Alberta other than to deal with Indian reserves and national parks.

Surely the Canadian people support a national government that will establish national environmental standards and give some national leadership. Surely she understands that the point I was making to Ty Lund, when I would not cave in to his blatant threat to tell me to get out of the province, was specifically because I believe, and the Government of Canada believes, that the people of Canada expect Canadian environmental leadership.

Industry Canada

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

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

The secret document prepared for Operation Unity shows that the federal government is set to spend $5.6 billion on the potential acquisition of defence equipment, including armoured vehicles, submarines and helicopters. According to the document, these equipment acquisition contracts could have a profound impact on Quebec businesses. The document identifies eight Quebec businesses likely to benefit economically and outlines the political views of their top executives.

How should we describe the federal government's behaviour in dangling in front of some businesses generous contracts in return for their support for the No side? Is this not pure blackmail?

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

Mr. Speaker, again, the opposition's allegations are totally unfounded.

Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition made comments to the press, which were reported by Hugh Winsor and which indicate that there is absolutely nothing to support his allegations and no evidence whatsoever that any company has been subjected to pressure.

In fact, as far as the defence industry is concerned, the report points out that companies such as Expro and SNC-IT that are very dependent on federal ammunition contracts could be forced to close their doors, while the companies that now rely on support and service contracts could be compelled to move part of their operations.

I have here a whole list of excerpts from the report pointing to the main conclusion, namely, that separation would create very serious economic problems in Quebec and eliminate a great many jobs. I am willing to show the hon. member for Roberval, who requested it yesterday, the proof that the vast majority of the

industries identified in the report, the proof that Quebec's separation would be an element-

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs did not answer the question at all. I did not talk about defence supplies but about defence equipment. He did not say anything about that.

Here is my supplementary: As the secret document prepared in March refers to defence contracts in the next three months, how does the minister explain that they have not yet confirmed the benefits from the equipment acquisition contracts? The government is probably saving this lever to put pressure on some Quebec businesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, we gave very clear answers to those questions. Quebec receives a proportion of capital defence spending that is much higher than its percentage of the population.

Again, page after page of the document in question shows that the separation they want would hurt Quebec employees as well as investments and the various industries in Quebec. Again, the document he is quoting from is the best proof that, on October 30, Quebecers will vote No to separation to preserve the economic benefits from their association with Canada.