Debates of May 31st, 1995

Care Canada

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to my colleague's question.

The CBC program last night made very serious allegations against Care Canada, but I should like to say at the beginning that those are allegations and not facts. We have to make sure that we make that distinction.

CIDA carries on a regular program of auditing of all agencies that it has contracts with and which it funds. It has done that with Care Canada and has found that all the funds provided to Care Canada in whatever program were used properly as indicated through contracts.

[Translation]

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the federal government's financial commitments to Care Canada, does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to suspend all federal grants to this agency until the announced investigation gets to the bottom of the troubling allegations against Care Canada?

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)]

Mr. Speaker, CIDA currently has ongoing contracts with Care. As I said before, we have no reason according to our audits to say that it is using its funds in any but the best way.

On the other hand, we have very serious concerns about the allegations that have been made. CIDA is immediately starting its own investigation of the agency as an institution. That will include a review of the allegations that have been made.

Bosnia

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that Canadian peacekeepers were not in the former Yugoslavia to make war with anybody. Unfortunately that view is not shared by the Bosnian Serbs.

They have declared the 320 UN hostages, including 55 Canadians, to be prisoners of war. They have declared that all agreements with the United Nations are null and void.

In response, NATO is calling on the UN to beef up its mandate and the contact group is asking for the power to aggressively attack the warring factions. The UN is at the brink of a protracted war with the Bosnian Serbs.

Will the government today formally acknowledge that the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia is over and that our soldiers are now being asked to play an aggressive peacemaking role in that region?

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

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a question of semantics. Peacekeeping in the traditional sense has rarely been followed in both Croatia and Bosnia. It was not followed in Somalia. These are not traditional peacekeeping situations, but we all refer to them in the generic sense as peacekeeping because that terminology developed by former Prime Minister Pearson is an accepted role for the international forces.

The Government of Canada does not accept the notion that the mandate of the United Nations in Bosnia is invalid. We feel it can still work and we feel it can work with a modification of the mandate in a number of areas. I outlined them in a speech the other night and the leader of the Reform Party heard them.

We feel that the United Nations, the world community, has so much at stake that we should do all possible to ensure that a reformulated, redirected mandate can be discharged.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are not arguing about semantics but about the substance of the situation.

The major NATO allies are deploying reinforcements in the Balkans. The secretary-general of the United Nations is proposing to change the mandate and UN soldiers are being asked to play a more aggressive role in that part of the country.

Our peacekeepers have become peace enforcers, a role which goes against the original mandate and for which they are not properly equipped.

Given that our role is changing, no matter what words the minister wishes to use to describe it, and that the lives of Canadian soldiers are being placed at greater risk, will the government now demand a place for Canada in the UN decision making contact group?

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

Mr. Speaker, the contact group is not a UN sponsored organization. It is a group of nations largely European-it includes Russia and the United States-that have come together and have tried to effect a solution. We have made our position clear that we would have preferred to have been part of that group.

As I said the other night, we have to look forward and not look back. As a result of some of the comments that have been made by our Prime Minister with respect to the specific issue, it has been agreed over the last number of months to expand the consultative process among troop contributors, of which Canada is a significant player. That will mean we will have even more

consultations, including the meeting I have just described that will take place in Paris on Saturday.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not just want to be consulted. Canadians want to have a say in key decisions that affect the lives of the forces in Bosnia. Canada invented peacekeeping. We have been major players in every key UN peacekeeping mission. Our soldiers have taken on some of the most dangerous assignments in the former Yugoslavia.

The fact that Canada has no real decision making position in actions that have a direct impact on our soldiers is completely unacceptable to the House and the Canadian people.

If the government is insisting on staying in Bosnia, a decision with which we profoundly disagree, will the minister at least insist on membership in the contact group as a condition for remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, without getting too much involved, the answer to the specific question is no.

We have a forum that has worked well in the last few months and is expanding and will meet again on Saturday. It is the troop contributing nations.

I have been at other meetings of this group in the past number of months. It will be a decision making body; it is a decision making body.

The hon. member quibbles about having a say not meaning consultation. We will be having a say, we are having a say. He obviously does not remember that when it came to the question of application of NATO air power Canada was very much in the forefront not just in consultation but as part of the decision making process and withheld approval until many of our key concerns were met. Those concerns were valid then, they are valid now and they will be valid in the weeks to come.

Regional Development

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, who is also responsible for regional development in Quebec.

The federal government is preparing to review all of its regional development activities. In the future, the Federal Office of Regional Development will concentrate its activities on a single program focussed on small and medium businesses cutting its aid budgets by 60 per cent at the same time. With Bill C-91 on the federal bank, Ottawa intends to sign agreements directly with agencies that are under Quebec's jurisdiction.

How can the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec talk of harmonizing federal and provincial action, when he is preparing, with Bill C-91 among others, to intervene, indeed to act as the representative of Quebec regional development agencies over the head of the Quebec government?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not understand this bill at all. It establishes a new mandate for the Federal Business Development Bank, among other things.

I can tell the hon. member that the excellent co-operation between the bank and the federal regional development agencies will help small and medium businesses throughout Canada, particularly in Quebec.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in this House, we can see that the real person responsible for regional development in Quebec is the minister from Ontario.

As Quebec is increasingly decentralizing and regionalizing, are we to understand, with the establishment of a new mandate linking the federal office and the Federal Business Development Bank, that the minister, through the ever popular flexible federalism the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs referred to yesterday, is setting up a central Canadian agency to increase overlap and duplication and to attack Quebec's regional development policy head on?

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say that the question of the hon. member, whom I hold in high regard, is completely absurd.

Let me begin by saying that, when a question concerns the Federal Business Development Bank, it is directed to the minister, and this is why he responded. When a question concerns regional development, that is the federal development office, I am happy to reply.

First, I am pleased to say that we asked Quebec whether it wanted to align itself with our policies, and we are awaiting its reply. The ball is now in Quebec's court.

Second, we adjusted our operations to the requests of local authorities.

Third, at the annual conference held by the Université de Chicoutimi in Quebec City two weeks ago, the provincial government was asked to do exactly what we are now doing at the federal level. So the hon. member should listen to what his fellow Quebecers are saying.

Government Appointments

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals in the red book promised to wipe out patronage appointments and bring integrity to government. Word now comes from British Columbia that at least three legal firms with no previous prosecution experience have been awarded standing contracts to act on behalf of the crown in putting criminals behind bars.

Since the government is so fond of citing the merit principle whenever it becomes clear we are really talking about the patronage principle, could the Minister of Justice explain the merit in handing over the responsibility for prosecuting criminals to law firms with absolutely no experience in that field?

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to answer a question when we do not know what the case was and we do not know who the law firms were. All we know is there was work supplied by the Department of Justice.

Contracts by the Department of Justice are given very carefully with a great deal of forethought, and all the firms with which the Department of Justice does business are very competent in the field in which they are to be working.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary might be interested that all three law firms in question have absolute Liberal pedigrees.

The law firm partner James Hutchison happens to be the president of the revenue minister's Victoria riding association. Another contract was given to David Mulroney who happens to be the vice-president of the minister's Liberal association.

In light of the Liberals' promise to wipe out patronage appointments and bring integrity to government, why has the justice department failed to deliver on this important promise?

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is saying that because the Liberal Party was able to associate itself with very competent people during the election campaign and so many throughout Canada, as the popular vote would indicate, there will be quite a few of them who are Liberals.

That person is a Liberal certainly does not discount them from being a capable lawyer. If we were to discount all the capable lawyers who are Liberals we would have a difficult time in awarding contracts.

Canadian National Railways

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

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

In reply to the question I asked him on May 18, the minister said that the sale of CN would be conducted in the best interests of taxpayers. But, this morning, it has come to light that, in the sole interest of reducing CN's debt, Ottawa will be sinking anywhere from $400 to $600 million into the purchase of CN buildings for which taxpayers have already paid.

How can the Minister of Transport claim that the government is acting in the Canadian public's best interests by acquiring CN property, when the sole purpose of this operation is to meet the liquidator's condition that CN's debt be artificially reduced to make its balance sheet more attractive, to-

[The Speaker]

Dear colleagues, I am finding today's questions somewhat long and would ask you to be a little briefer.

The Minister of Transport has the floor.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the question of the commercialization of CN is very complex.

I know the hon. member has had the opportunity to sit in committee and listen to people we consider to be as expert in this area as anyone in the country, who try to explain the need to provide an opportunity for CN to be sold in a viable way, to elicit enough investment interest to carry the issue to be put out this fall, but also to allow it to continue to compete on an equitable footing with Canadian Pacific.

The hon. member knows representatives of the competitor of CN, CP, have gone before the committee and explained they understand the need to have a reasonable debt-equity ratio, that we have to qualify for a triple B bond rating in order to raise funds on the investment market to operate CN and provide money for the acquisition.

I know it is a complex piece of business. I can only encourage the hon. member to take the word of the Minister of Transport and the government and also to listen to the people who understand the business principles involved in the commercialization of CN. It is in the best interest of taxpayers, the best interest of shippers and the best interest of competition that we are trying to do the best job we can.

Even the Financial Post and the Globe and Mail agree that on this one we are doing a fairly good job.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer in fact confirms that the government is reducing CN's debt to lure buyers, American buyers for example.

Now for my brief question. Will the minister acknowledge that taxpayers are going to have to pay not between $400 to $600 million in the effort to privatize CN, but as much as $1 billion, and that this public support of $1 billion is nothing less than an indirect subsidy Ottawa will be offering to the future owners of CN?

[English]

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, a fundamental question that has to be addressed by all members of the House of Commons as we deal with the commercialization of CN is whether members want to do it.

We can address all the theoretical questions. We can discuss whether the deal is absolutely perfect or whether the taxpayers of Canada will get an absolute best value on every aspect of the deal.

The Bloc Quebecois will have to decide whether it wants to support the commercialization and the privatization of CN. If it does, we will listen to its recommendations as to how we can do it well. However, if it does not want to do it, if it just wants to carp about it, it should simply oppose it and not try to deal with issues it obviously has no understanding of whatever.

Ethics Counsellor

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in 1988 Georges Clermont, then vice-president responsible for real estate at Canada Post and now the president of Canada Post, was at the Hotel Ritz in Barcelona, Spain. His bill was paid for by none other than José Perez, the developer of the Canada Post headquarters complex in Ottawa. Mr. Clermont has admitted this payment under oath.

Is this now sufficient evidence for the Prime Minister to finally allow an ethics counsellor investigation or must we wait until even more damning evidence is made public?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

No, Mr. Speaker.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, quite clearly the government is not willing to face up to issues of ethics which are hounding it.

It seems clear to me there is now considerable evidence there is more than a casual acquaintance between Mr. Perez and Mr. Clermont. Canadians have a right to know the extent of this symbiotic relationship.

If there will not be an independent investigation, why not? What is the explanation to the Canadian people?