Debates of March 29th, 1995

Monetary Policy

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to start with a quote: "Economic policies must not merely attack an individual problem in isolation from its costs in other areas. The Conservatives' single-minded fight against inflation resulted in a deep recession, three years without growth, declining incomes and skyrocketing unemployment".

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Are we to understand from this excerpt found in the Liberals' red book that the Minister of Finance does not agree with the statement made yesterday by the Bank of Canada governor, to the effect that fighting inflation through interest rate increases is the one and only priority of the Canadian monetary policy?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that, when it formed the official opposition, the Liberal Party criticized the policy of the Bank of Canada governor of the day.

The country was going through a period of high unemployment and economic decline, so we certainly had to comment on the monetary policy of the time. But Canada is now first among the G-7 countries in terms of growth, and it has just created 433,000 new jobs. Clearly, the situation is now drastically different.

I do support the statement made yesterday by the governor of the Bank of Canada.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is providing the very same answer as his Conservative predecessors, and he is implementing exactly the same monetary policy. The minister kept tearing up his shirts when the Conservatives applied the medicine which he is now pouring down Canadians' throats.

Does the minister realize that, by supporting a policy which is only geared to fight inflation, he is deliberately hurting job creation, and, consequently, he accepts unemployment rates of 9.5 per cent in Canada and close to 12 per cent in Quebec, where 417,000 people are without work?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, again, many new jobs were created in Quebec, during the months of January and February. In fact, even the Premier of that province confirmed that job creation in Quebec was very strong, thus contradicting the comment which the hon. member just made.

However, the issue is whether or not the Bloc Quebecois accepts the fact that we must set objectives in the fight against inflation. Our objectives are in the one to three per cent range. If the hon. member is not happy with them, then let him tell us which inflation rate he is prepared to accept.

National Defence

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Anne-Marie Doyle may be gone from the Somalia inquiry but a serious unanswered question remains about how she ended up on the panel in the first place.

The Minister of National Defence has told the House that he personally named Ms. Doyle to the panel after reviewing the résumés of potential commissioners. Therefore, he should have no trouble in answering my question.

Who put Anne-Marie Doyle's name on the minister's list of potential commissioners?

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

Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to review the transcript of Hansard and this question was put yesterday. I felt that I had answered it to the best of my ability. Perhaps I was not explicit enough for the hon. member for Calgary Southwest. I will attempt to clarify the situation so that he is satisfied.

I said yesterday that the name of Anne-Marie Doyle had come to my attention as someone who had served with great distinction at the OECD. It was I who put her name forward. I felt that she was a good choice.

Before I gave that answer, the hon. member asked if I could assure the House that the former deputy minister, Bob Fowler, had nothing to do with framing the terms of reference of the inquiry and played no role whatsoever in proposing the name of Anne-Marie Doyle as a possible panel member. I answered those questions but perhaps not clearly enough for the hon. member. In both cases the answer is no.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister just said that this name was brought to his attention.

My question is, who brought this potential commissioner's name to the your attention?

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I would remind you please always to address questions to the Chair rather than directly to one another and your answers the same way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday and I say again today, quoting from Hansard : ``The name of Anne-Marie Doyle had come to my attention as someone who had served with great distinction at the OECD''.

As ministers, we are aware of many distinguished public servants working for the government now and also past public servants. I thought it would be good for the composition of the inquiry to have someone from the bench as the chair; someone from the field of journalism who was retired but who had some credibility as a member, and also someone who knew the workings of the government but specifically how foreign policy and defence policy were discharged by the government. I started looking at those kinds of people within the public service as well as former public servants.

I knew of Ms. Doyle's previous involvement in the Privy Council office as someone who had that particular dossier. When I asked for greater details about her career, it became obvious that she was someone of outstanding reputation who could discharge that position.

Had she continued to serve, I believe she would have discharged her obligations fully to the best of her abilities and as a credit to the commission.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's refusal to answer the question undermines confidence in the inquiry.

Yesterday the minister also stated that the Judge Advocate General helped him to draft the terms of reference of the Somali inquiry.

As the minister knows, the Judge Advocate General works with, and some would say for, the chief of defence staff and the deputy minister of defence. In effect the Judge Advocate General is part of the same military hierarchy that the inquiry is to investigate.

How big a hand has the national defence hierarchy had in drafting the terms of reference of the Somali inquiry? How can Canadians be assured that this involvement has not already prejudiced the inquiry?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest displays a profound ignorance of the National Defence Act.

First, the Judge Advocate General is appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada. It is an order in council appointment because that person must be independent in the advice he or she gives to ministers. That person is the chief legal officer in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Under the terms of the National Defence Act that person reports on a day to day basis to the Minister of National Defence. It was quite appropriate for me in the course of the last year to discuss aspects of the Somalia case with the Judge Advocate General, as his role under the National Defence Act explicitly says that he should be the one giving legal advice to the minister.

I verified certain aspects with the Judge Advocate General this morning because I wanted to make sure that anything I say on the floor of the House of Commons is absolutely and totally the truth. The government has the interests of all Canadians in mind in getting to the bottom of the events in Somalia in 1993.

The Judge Advocate General confirmed that the former deputy minister had nothing whatsoever to do with the drafting of the terms of reference. They were submitted to the Privy Council office. They were reviewed by the Department of Justice and everyone stands by them.

Air Transport

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

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, in reply to a question in the House from the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Transport said that his decision to delay Air Canada's access to Hong Kong market was connected to a similar decision involving Canadian's access to the German market. These are two separate issues. In the case of Hong Kong, negotiations were successful. Air Canada said it was ready to start operations this summer and has even negotiated landing slots.

My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In the case of Hong Kong, could the Minister tell us what other reasons, aside from Canadian's access to the German market, would prevent him from letting Air Canada start its operations on this market in the summer of 1995, since everything is in place?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well that negotiations with the Hong Kong airport authorities were concluded only a few days ago.

When we decided to establish a level of 300,000 passengers before identifying a second destination, we made sure that there would be two locations on this planet where this rule would come into force this year: in Germany and Hong Kong.

As I have already pointed out, for the past 14 months Air Canada has had access to Japan, a market this airline has coveted for a very long time. It is now able to prepare for its arrival in Hong Kong, another very important market. For Canadian Airlines International, which needs landing rights in Germany and other destinations in Asia, it is also very important to be able to plan ahead and have some certainty when agreements are negotiated, not only with these countries but also with the financial institutions that support these airlines.

I still say that, after all, Air Canada president Hollis Harris said publicly that he appreciated the work done by a government that opened these markets to Air Canada for the first time in its history.

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

Mr. Speaker, would the minister not agree that it was his eagerness to accommodate Canadian that led him to delay Air Canada's access to the Hong Kong market, in the process delaying the creation of 500 jobs with this airline, including a large number of jobs at headquarters in Montreal and at the Dorval maintenance centre?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian aviation industry would explain to my hon. friend that the progress we have made in the last 14 or 15 months is unparalleled in Canadian aviation history.

We have been able to arrange a situation in which as of the end of this year every allocation of an air route in this country will be absolutely transparent. There will be conditions and criteria that allow for Canadian Airlines International and Air Canada to plan, to purchase aircraft, to lease aircraft, to do their marketing in an atmosphere of certainty unheard of in the aviation industry in Canada.

The proof of that is even before we announced the second designation based on the 300,000 passenger level, Air Canada had already indicated it was in the process of hiring nearly 1,000 new employees: pilots, attendants and people who work in maintenance and on ground activities.

I understand the hon. member's distaste for the progress we have been able to make. The airline industry in Canada is in better shape today than it has been for the last 20 years.

Pearson International Airport

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, more unanswered questions have surfaced surrounding the Pearson airport deal. A Transport Canada report dated November 4, 1993 contradicts the Nixon report. A Deloitte & Touche report and a Price Waterhouse report contradict the Nixon report.

Questions have been raised concerning the Prime Minister's private meeting with Jack Matthews and Charles Bronfman, two key players in the Pearson deal.

It is time to lift the fog over Pearson. Will the government order an independent judicial inquiry into the cancelled airport deal?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister spoke to the allegations very clearly in the House yesterday.

I want to challenge the hon. member, as I challenged Leader of the Opposition. If they have allegations to make, stand like a man and make them here in the House instead of hiding behind some scurrilous newspaper claims that have absolutely no foundation in fact.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I challenge the government to stand in the House and answer the questions the Canadian people want answered.

If the government has nothing to hide, why is the Prime Minister's former law office refusing to give Mr. Matthews documentation of his meeting with the Prime Minister? The only thing clear in all of this is that Canadian taxpayers are again paying the price for political games of Tory and Liberal insiders.

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister again, for the sake of integrity will she order an independent judicial inquiry? Will the Deputy Prime Minister give this commitment now to the Canadian people? They demand it.

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

Mr. Speaker, logically speaking, if the Prime Minister was supposedly in the pocket of these companies involved, why had he the guts to say no to the deal?

Criminal Code

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Justice stated that, if anti-gang legislation would give the police the tools they needed to combat criminal gangs, he would introduce one. Experts from the SPCUM, the Quebec police force and the Quebec unit of the RCMP have been calling for such legislation for a year.

Rather than simply pay lip service, as he did yesterday, how can the Minister of Justice hide behind the current provisions of the Criminal Code and refuse to incorporate anti-gang provisions, as Italy, France and the United States have done?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the important thing is to get the job done; to provide the tools to the police and the prosecutors to detect, prosecute and punish crime.

We have had a request for an amendment to the code with respect to gangs involved in criminal activities. As I told the House yesterday in response to a question on the same subject, I am looking at the question, as is the Solicitor General.

Our departments are examining amendments to the code that might be of help. When we conclude that assessment we will respond. In the meantime, I have invited the hon. member if he has a proposal to put in respect of specific amendments to let me have it. He assured me he will.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the Minister of Justice is rejecting measures that would make the work of the police easier because he is unable to deliver the goods, as was the case in other matters such as genital mutilation, support payments and discrimination based on sexual orientation?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this gamesmanship is both tedious and uncharacteristic. I wish the hon. member would focus on the answer to the question he has put. It is a serious matter.

The police have asked us to consider an amendment to the code which would provide for criminalizing certain organizations. That is not something one does with the snap of a finger or without taking care with the language.

We also have to be concerned about motorcycle groups, for example, that are not criminal, that are quite legitimate. We also have to bear in mind that police already have some 800 sections of the Criminal Code to deal with today.

We will look at the question seriously. We will do the responsible thing. If the hon. member has a specific proposal for language, I have already asked him to provide it to me. I will give it due consideration.

Pearson International Airport

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday brought to light a covered up government document stating cancelling the Pearson development contract would cost the taxpayers of Canada up to $2 billion.

Another secret document provided to Robert Nixon in October 1993 states: "Crown rate of return considerably better than the crown construction option and the PDC return on investment endorsed as reasonable rate of return by both the finance department and an independent financial consultant".

My question is for the Minister of Finance. If all these documents are wrong, where is the documentation showing this? When will the minister table this documentation in the House?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the document the hon. member refers to as being covered up is one that obviously was covered up as far as he was concerned. He has not bothered to take a look at the documents made public in December of last year dealing with the case before the courts.

One thing the hon. member would want to refer to in looking at the documents and the opinions expressed therein is that the people who determined that Paxport was the appropriate offer to

accept on the basis of the privatization plans for Pearson would also have to take into account that only a few months after that recommendation was made, those people were unable because they were financially incompetent to proceed with the deal.