Debates of May 5th, 1995

Girl Guides

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I had the pleasure of welcoming the 223rd Girl Guides of Mississauga to the House of Commons. I also had the great honour to present heritage badges to 18 of these special young ladies who had fulfilled the requirements, namely about their own heritage and about the natural and cultural heritage of Canada.

On this very special occasion I would like to publicly congratulate the honourees on their wonderful achievements.

I would also like to pay special tribute to the Girl Guides and their volunteer group leaders all across Canada for their very special contribution to their communities and to Canada which, as the Prime Minister has said so often, is a proud, generous, prosperous and tolerant nation, the best country in the world.

Pearson International Airport

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there will come a point when the entire Pearson mess will crash and Canadians will be left to pick up the pieces of the wreckage. It is a sad day in Canadian history when patronage heaven decides to clear the stench over Pearson with Tory and Liberal hacks investigating a patronage affair.

Accusations fly between the two while the airport remains in a holding pattern. Canada's most important piece of infrastructure continues to deteriorate.

Reformers called for an impartial judicial inquiry over a year ago. Canadian taxpayers, as always, are stuck with the cheque and they want some answers. Instead, a year has passed and the Liberal government provides Canadians with a partial, patronage based inquiry without a single elected official, members of the family compact investigating members of the family compact.

Canadians deserve better government than this. It is time to rebuild; it is time to reform. We must not delay the development of Pearson, the crown jewel of our transportation system.

Internal Trade

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Industry stubbornly refused to admit that Bill C-88 gives the federal government extraordinary powers that go far beyond the scope of the internal trade agreement.

Now that he has read his bill and his officials have informed him of the scope of the provisions of C-88 on the government's retaliatory powers, could the Minister of Industry confirm that the federal government is giving itself, among other things, the power to cut transfer payments to any province that fails to comply with the internal trade agreement?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken once again. If he would read the bill, he will see the following, and I quote:

-pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement, the Governor in Council may, by order-

In order to understand the bill, the member will have to read the entire agreement on internal trade.

Had he read it, he might understand that the federal government's power in this area is very limited and applies only in the case of provincial discrimination against a company because of its federal status. Then there has to be a hearing before a committee to resolve the dispute and then another for the company and then the province involved has to refuse to implement the terms of the agreement.

The only provision then is that all parties must comply with the agreement. There is nothing like what the member for Roberval has suggested.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Industry continue to deny that Bill C-88 gives the federal government excessive powers, when no less than the executive director of the Internal Trade Secretariat himself, Bob Knox, says that Bill C-88 enables the government to use whatever retaliatory measures it deems appropriate in any sector?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I put the question to Mr. Knox this morning and he told me that the reporter had completely misunderstood him, which is not surprising. I can read the provisions of the agreement to the hon. member if he wants me to. I would like to stress this point because the federal government is very seldom in a position to intervene in a dispute. This applies only to those companies that are subject to action because they are federally regulated.

If this takes place after every other recourse provided for in the agreement has been exhausted, then the government may suspend the application of certain provisions with respect to a province, but on the following conditions: benefits must be suspended or retaliatory measures imposed in the same sector as the measure considered inconsistent with the agreement; moreover, benefits may be suspended or retaliatory measures may be imposed in other sectors covered by the agreement only when it would be impractical or ineffective to suspend such benefits or impose such measures.

It is strictly limited those sectors covered by the agreement. So there is no problem.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

No, Mr. Speaker, there are no problems. There are never any problems with the federal government. The minister has just told us that the journalist misunderstood. Yet, I quoted Mr. Knox's statement verbatim.

You know, if we are to believe the Minister of Industry, the opposition never understands, the opposition's legal advisers do not understand, and the same goes for Mr. Knox and the journalist. According to him, nobody ever understands anything, except him.

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

He is the only one who understands.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

He is the only one who is marching in step.

I will ask him a third question and I hope that, this time, we will agree on a possible answer. How can the provinces trust the federal government when none other than the senior strategic adviser with the Internal Trade Secretariat, John Richardson, admitted that the bill goes further than the agreement? That is what Mr. Richardson himself said.

How can we trust a partner who, at the first opportunity, betrays his signature and clearly exceeds the terms of an agreement?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, let me again try to explain to the hon. member. The provisions of the bill are limited by the agreement on internal trade. That is the case in the wording of clause 9 of the bill. It is the same wording as applies in the implementing legislation for the World Trade Organization and NAFTA. It is normal wording.

The agreement limits very specifically the occasions when the federal government is involved in a dispute resolution. Most of the agreement on internal trade has to do with regulating disputes between provinces. Only in the rare case where a company is discriminated against because of its federal status or because it is federally regulated would the federal government be involved in the process of dispute resolution which starts first

with consultation, second with the appointment of a panel, and then the resolution of the dispute by the panel.

If the dispute were resolved in favour of the federal government, if the province refused to take the measures that were dictated by the panel, if a year passed without that happening and further consultation did not occur, then possibly the federal government could withhold benefits in the sectors concerned with the dispute or the sectors involved in the agreement on internal trade.

This does not at all pertain to the issues of health and social transfers raised by the hon. member in his first question. It is ridiculous.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. The Canadian provinces and the federal government agreed on the terms of an agreement on interprovincial trade. The federal government is now using Bill C-88 to give itself powers that were never discussed during negotiations or when the agreement was signed.

How does the Minister of Industry, who claims to be co-operating with the provinces, to be a reliable partner and to act openly, explain that at no time was the Quebec government, or the Ontario government, for that matter, ever consulted on Bill C-88?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. The ministers responsible for internal trade met in Calgary a few weeks ago. Together with the other ministers responsible, I announced at the time that this bill would be tabled in the House of Commons after the Easter break.

I repeat that there is nothing in the bill, that it is simply not possible for the bill to contain provisions that go further than the agreement itself. It is certainly possible for us to implement the internal trade agreement, to table in the House of Commons a bill applying only to the measures included in the agreement without going any further.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, we did not get it. Why is it that the Minister of Industry is the only one who understands? We have been told that he is the only one who does understand.

How can the Minister of Industry continue to claim that Bill C-88 complies with the Agreement on Internal Trade, considering that the two senior officials responsible for its implementation maintain that the legislation goes beyond the scope of the agreement?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I can do no more than refer the member to the bill and ask him to read its terms so that he can see the provision about which he complains states:

For the purpose of suspending benefits or imposing retaliatory measures of equivalent effect against a province pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement,

The provisions of the bill are limited by the agreement. I regret that words spoken by officials were taken out of context and misquoted, I might add, by a journalist. I am sure it has never happened to the hon. member. I would like to emphasize the importance of reading the bill before the House.

Hughes Aircraft

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

Mr. Speaker, Hughes Aircraft of Canada received a government contract to modernize our air traffic control system at a cost of almost $420 million. The system is already 15 months late and now we have learned that Hughes is looking for as much as $400 million more of taxpayers' money to complete the job.

The Minister of Transport expressed his dissatisfaction with the delay and said that there would be a limit to the amount of money the government was willing to add to the contract. The government should not add anything to the deal. It was a fixed price contract and Hughes should deliver.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. Will he assure Canadians that not one more dime of public money will be given to Hughes Aircraft?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in response to a question yesterday, the government is very concerned about the matter to which my hon. friend refers. We are in the process of negotiations now with Hughes.

The system should become a very important element in the air navigation system for Canada. We have serious reservations about the way the project has been managed and the problems to which my friend refers in terms of delivery and cost.

I do not want to prejudice the negotiations by doing it in public, but I want to assure my hon. friend that we are very sensitive to the potential for cost overruns. We want to make sure the system functions well. We will do everything in our power to try to protect the interests of Canadian taxpayers in the matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, Hughes officials informed top level officials of Transport Canada last month that they could not meet the terms of the

original contract but were willing to deliver a scaled down version for an extra $150 million.

The Minister of Transport, however, told the House that Hughes officials had assured him the project was on target and within budget. This makes me wonder whether or not the government would have quietly given Hughes more money if the deal had not been made public.

When did the government learn of Hughes' inability to meet the original terms of the contract and why was the House not informed of this serious matter?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I regret the implication in the hon. member's question that somehow we have been remiss in responding to the problems.

As I indicated in my response yesterday, immediately that I became aware there was a problem with the contract I not only advised the deputy minister of my concerns but I also advised the Auditor General of Canada and asked him to look into it.

Further, my reference to the comfort that we received from Hughes with respect to delivery on time and the cost provisions I said was made several months ago, quite some time ago in a meeting in my office with the principal officers of the company responsible for delivering on the contract. They had assured me at that time that the difficulties had been overcome and they were confident of being able to meet the terms of the contract.

I want to say in fairness to all the parties involved that these types of very complex and technological contracts often are subject to some change and modification as the technology evolves. However this particular situation is unacceptable to the Government of Canada and we intend to protect the interests of Canadian taxpayers to the extent we can.

I know the hon. member is very fond of contracts being honoured in view of his support for the Pearson airport contract.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just love it that the minister raised the question of my favourite subject.

The government has been quite willing to cancel contracts including those with Andersen Consulting, Micronav International, and, yes, the Pearson airport contract.

Hughes Aircraft has only delivered a meagre 10 per cent of its promised contract. Now it states that it cannot meet the original terms of the deal and will only produce a scaled down version of the air traffic control system if it gets more public money.

I have a supplementary question. Why will the government not cancel the Hughes contract immediately? Not one more cent of Canadian money should be wasted.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, those who are following the Pearson saga will know the hon. member was quoted in a major article this week as having succumbed to the arguments of those who keep whispering in his ear about the propriety of the Pearson contract, and he now supports it. Who knows, given a couple of weeks he could even come around and support the Hughes contract.

Peacekeepers

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

A few weeks ago, the government announced that there would be an inquiry to shed light on the behaviour of Canadian peacekeepers in Somalia.

This morning, we learned that, on the advice of his lawyers, the Minister of National Defence has ordered that no document relating to the inquiry is to be made available to the media and the public under the Access to Information Act.

How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain her government's refusal to give access to the documents which relate to the inquiry on the behaviour of Canadian soldiers in Somalia?

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

Mr. Speaker, a recommendation was made by the Judge Advocate General. The government has yet to make a decision in that respect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope that decision will not take as long as the setting up of a board of inquiry.

How does the Deputy Prime Minister reconcile this refusal to give access to information with the government's claim that it wants to shed light on the events which took place in Somalia? What is the government trying to hide by acting in this way?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat it in case the member did not get it the first time.

The Judge Advocate General has made a recommendation about the issue of access to information. There has been some discussion among the commissioners, including former journalist Peter Desbarats who is of the public view that further informal links of information may put the inquiry in some difficulty.

We are at the moment examining the issue and we have not made a decision. We obviously want the inquiry into the Conservative handling of the Somalia affair to be as thorough and as public as possible. We do not want it to turn into an O. J. Simpson style circus. We will do everything we can to make sure public access to all information is available to everyone.