Debates of April 26th, 1995

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, it amazes me how people can go to committee, hear an answer, then come to the House of Commons and completely give a distortion like the hon. member has.

I said that the government has given authority to me as minister and my officials to explore the possibility of purchasing secondhand submarines from the British navy.

Discussions have been ongoing. At a certain point in time, my colleagues in the cabinet will have to decide whether or not they wish the Government of Canada to purchase those submarines.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that even then the minister said that it was up to the government to decide and that some members of cabinet supported this move.

At a time when the auditor general is denouncing mismanagement at the Department of National Defence and the waste of hundreds of millions of dollars every year, how can the Minister

of National Defence justify wasting another $2 billion or so on secondhand submarines we do not need?

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

Mr. Speaker, I might remind the hon. member he was a member of the special joint committee on defence which recommended to the government that we explore the possibility of replacing the Oberon submarines. That is what we have done.

I know members of his party had some disagreement with the basic elements of the report but I do not remember his actually dissociating himself from the part of the report that dealt with submarines.

Social Transfer

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Yesterday in response to a question from the leader of the NDP he said that the new Canada social transfer strengthens the federal ability to ensure the responsibility of the provinces to live up to national principles. He went on to say it gives the continuing ability to ensure that leverage is exercised; in other words, blackmailing provincial governments.

On March 31 the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that the budget makes it clear that fewer strings will be attached to the Canada social transfer and went on to say that social transfer strings will be reduced and these requirements will be set by mutual consent.

In the eyes of the government, does the Canada social transfer strengthen or weaken the ability of the federal government to apply federal standards in areas of provincial jurisdiction?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, the new Canadian health and social transfer is the best of all possible worlds.

It provides more flexibility for the provinces in programming. At the same time it ensures fundamental principles and standards under the act. That is a sign of very creative policy making, which only this government is capable of doing and which the Reform Party is totally incapable of understanding.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the best of all possible worlds is apparently the ability of the government to talk out of both sides of its mouth.

My supplementary question is for the same minister. Is the new Canada social transfer designed to strengthen the government's ability to impose federal standards, as the Liberals say in English, or to reinforce areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, as the Liberals say in French?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we established five very important health care principles in order to protect the health care network throughout Canada.

Of course, these principles will still be protected under the new transfer program. At the same time, we will hold negotiations with all the provinces to discuss the new principles based on a consensus among all partners. The new federalism is based on consensus, partnership and co-operation for the future.

National Defence

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

In his 1994 report, the auditor general gives numerous examples of mismanagement resulting, among other things, from DND's inability to assess the cost of its operations. More recently, we learned that the cost of the frigates was underestimated by nearly $2 billion, with two of the twelve frigates yet to be delivered.

How can the minister maintain that the projected savings announced in the 1995 budget will be achieved, when the Auditor General's figures show that the department keeps miscalculating its expenditures?

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

First, Mr. Speaker, the department must realize all the savings as announced in the 1995 budget as with 1994, simply because we have only so much money that floated by Parliament to the department. Therefore, rest assured the budget cuts that were announced will be put in place as they were in 1994.

I would like to dispute what my friend opposite said when he talks about the problems with the Canadian frigate program. As with all new technological developments, and the fact that a lot of new integrated systems require pioneering developmental work with the frigate, there are teething problems. There are problems with getting accustomed to the new technologies.

However, what the hon. member has conveniently forgotten to mention is that this project has come in about a billion dollars under budget.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we do know about the frigate program is that it will come in at $2 billion over budget, not $1 billion under, like the minister said.

Since senior officials of the Department of National Defence recognize that the Canadian Forces can still buy all the equipment they need in spite of budget cuts, will the minister admit that his department's capital budget has been overestimated, that more drastic cuts should have been made and that no submarines should be purchased, as specified in the Bloc Quebecois's dissenting report?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be advocating even greater cuts in the budget of the Department of National Defence.

I would like to point out that while the members for the official opposition advocated in the last election a 25 per cent cut in federal expenditures in defence, when we have cut not nearly by that amount but by a significant amount over the last couple of years, the first to object to the application of those cuts are the hon. members for the Bloc Quebecois.

Land Mines

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, millions of land mines are buried in countries around the world, inhibiting post-war reconstruction and killing hundreds of men and women every month.

The UN will be convening in September to discuss strengthening its conventions regulating the trade and the use of land mines.

I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs whether Canada, a world leader in de-mining activities, will support a ban and a moratorium on the use and international trade of land mines?

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. The hon. member should know that a number of countries are presently respecting a moratorium in this regard. Canada, I am told, has not exported land mines since 1987.

We would like to work diligently with others in Vienna to extend the convention on certain conventional weapons and to ensure that land mines are covered and properly taken care of.

Communications

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

In the CRTC response to a draft the cabinet directly prepared for direct to home broadcasting, it states that the proposed government directive may be in violation of the Broadcasting Act. The proposed DTH carriage rules and the revocation of the exemption order may both be illegal according to the CRTC.

Instead of attempting to benefit Power Corp. with cabinet directives of questionable legal standing, why will the government not refer the mess it has created to a House standing committee where decisions will be made out in the open and without the perception of family influence tainting the process?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, much of the content of the question has already been answered this afternoon.

The government will table a document later on which contains the thrust of government policy. I understand that our colleague would like to explore many issues before the document is tabled. She will have time tomorrow and in the ensuing days and weeks to raise all the questions she would like once the policy has been laid down.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to these questions, it has always been looking at the issue of openness, accountability and transparency.

The government has been fast tracking the cabinet directive to try to cover up the huge regulatory mess it has created. It is a mess because it does not know if it wants open competition or not. It is a mess because industry is opening our borders while heritage is closing them. The DTH fiasco demonstrates that the CRTC as well has outlived its purpose.

Rather than helping a favoured few, why not implement the recommendations of the competition bureau to allow telecommunications and broadcasting free market driven competition?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague is addressing openness and transparency. She has probably read the report of the panel on DTH. That panel suggests the matter be put before the House under section 7 of the Broadcasting Act. This is a very open process, a very transparent process.

Furthermore, the panel recommends the authority for DTH be granted through a licensing process administered by the CRTC. Here again, this is a very open and transparent process.

The member will see in a few minutes what the government intends to do.

Immigration

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

Mr. Speaker, the Immigration officials' decision not to deliver a visitor's visa to Algerian filmmaker Hafsa Zinaï Koudil continues to shock people. Indeed, it is most surprising that Canada would refuse to welcome a filmmaker who received a death sentence from Algerian fundamentalists for having denounced, in her film, the oppression to which Algerian women are subjected.

Did the Minister of Immigration reconsider the issue and will he take action to allow Ms. Koudil to present her film at the Festival Vues d'Afrique?

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I told the hon. member in this House that our officials rejected the application after interviewing the applicant.

I also told the hon. member that if he had new information or details, he or the applicant should contact departmental officials.

There is a problem with visitors' visas. A person wishing to come to Canada can apply for a visitor's visa. However, if there are real problems relating to refugee status, then that person must make an application after claiming refugee status and not when applying for a visitor's visa. This is the kind of clarification we seek from applicants.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants all the necessary information, he should watch the evening news report. Last night, every television network provided all that information. Everyone in Canada probably knows about the issue, except the minister.

How can the minister keep refusing to grant a visitor's visa to this Algerian woman, while at the same time refusing to immediately expel Mr. Rahmani, who is accused of being a religious extremist as well as an active member of the Islamic Salvation Front, the group behind the death threat to this filmmaker?

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member ought to consult the immigration critic in terms of how visitor visa applications are assessed. They are assessed on a case by case basis. Of the nearly one million applications made worldwide, 86 per cent are approved.

What I said is there was something said during the interview that caused concern. The person making the application has every opportunity to provide clarification, to provide new information. The member says just because it was in the news it is what, a guarantee to do what?

I am open to looking into this case but there has to be the new information, the special circumstances or the clarification furnished by this applicant. Otherwise people in Quebec will also see that somehow we treat visitor visa applications on whether they are artists or not. That situation cannot be allowed.

Department Of National Revenue

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of revenue. Access to information documents revealed the Department of National Revenue spent $250,000 in order to fly bureaucrats to Victoria during the Commonwealth Games last August. In a written response to me on September 28 the minister advised me that a total of only $76,000 had been spent, a far cry from $250,000.

Could the minister explain the discrepancy?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the letter the hon. member refers to but if I may speculate the figure given in the newspaper apparently refers to all the customs officers reassigned to Victoria and Vancouver to take care of the number of people who came specifically for the games, be they athletes, officials or tourists who were there in the regular course of events.

There were a total of 60 people reassigned and of these there were some who were from my staff and from the public affairs office in Ottawa. If I may again toss my mind back to September when I wrote him that letter, the paper is not talking about the same group of people the letter referred to.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand the letter from the minister. It states very specifically $76,000. I suggest the discrepancy between $250,000 and $76,000 is an awfully wide gulf for anyone to accept.

Can the minister explain more clearly to the House and to the long suffering Canadian taxpayer why even $250,000 would have been spent on this flying back and forth?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple to explain why we spent the money, to take the extra customs officers from British Colum-

bia, one from Yukon, three from Alberta, to put them where we had this sudden rush of people crossing the border.

It must be recognized by the hon. member that Canada Customs is the country's first line of defence against the importation of drugs, weapons or terrorism from other countries.

Therefore it is important for us when we are faced with a situation such as we had to make sure we have the people in place who are able to handle it. This type of flexibility is perfectly normal. It took place for the Calgary 1988 winter Olympics. It took place in the Nordic Games in northern Ontario a few months ago and it will take place again if we are successful with other bids for other games in the future.

[Translation]