Debates of June 6th, 1995

Poverty

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, numerous studies have shown that poverty is the biggest cause of poor health. By ending national standards for social welfare and by cutting financial support for all major social programs including UI and social housing, the federal government will not only create more poverty but will put more pressure on the health care system. Bill C-76 moves us closer to the model which is being followed in the United States.

One only has to visit any relatively large urban centre and see the many homeless people, the level of poverty, to realize that cutting social programs and giving more power to the provinces will not work without consultation.

We have always believed that Canada was a country where people cared about their neighbours, where we work toward equality and where universality meant that everyone had access to social programs.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the House to consider these negative impacts of Bill C-76 when they vote.

Bosnia

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, at a meeting in Paris Saturday, European and NATO Defence Ministers agreed to create a new rapid reaction force that would be responsible for protecting and assisting peacekeepers in Bosnia. Now it seems that Russia, a member of the contact group on Bosnia, is opposed to the creation of this rapid reaction force.

Could the Prime Minister tell us whether his government officially supports the creation of such a force and whether Canada will contribute in a specific way?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have made it clear that Canada supports the initiative taken by the British and the French, but so far, the Canadian government has made no decision on whether to contribute troops or equipment. Our consultations are continuing, and a decision will be made, either positive or negative.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, if this kind of force were to be limited to a Franco-British expeditionary unit, it would lose much of its credibility and effectiveness. The Dutch have already agreed to support this force and may participate. We know that Dutch peacekeeping missions have a profile similar to those led by Canada. Perhaps Canada should consider this in a favourable light.

I want to ask the Prime Minister whether in his opinion, Russia's opposition may lead to some second thoughts about setting up the rapid reaction force proposed by the United States, France and Great Britain?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think Russia's position makes any difference in the arrangements made by the British and the French. We are continuing our consultations with other countries that may participate in this force.

I am glad to see that the Leader of the Opposition would be in favour of Canada's participation.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I said that we will consider favourably the possibility to consider it, to use diplomatic wording.

The Prime Minister should also consider the possibility that Russia will use its vote to exercise a right of veto at the security council of the United Nations. If it does that it would be very difficult to consider the force.

Does the Prime Minister share the opinion of Foreign Office Secretary Douglas Hurd to the effect that unless a rapid deployment force is created the peacekeepers should withdraw from Bosnia?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to extract from the Leader of the Opposition a yes that he is not ready to say at this time. I know another yes that he is very keen on. I am very keen on a no.

My view is that the presence of Canadian troops and others under the UNPROFOR group is still extremely useful in maintaining some peace in many parts of the former Yugoslavia. While they are there they are available during emergencies supplying drugs and food.

They have done this very well in the last three years and have saved a lot of lives. Canadian participation is still very good. We favour what the Brits and the French are proposing but that does not mean we have to participate necessarily. We have made a good contribution.

We are very far away from that part of the world and in many ways, it is somewhat more a European problem than a Canadian problem.

Government Finance

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

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

During his visit to Ottawa, the chairman of the International Chamber of Commerce urged G-7 countries to get their finances under control in order to guarantee solid economic growth. To arrive at this end, he suggested cutting social programs, decreasing the minimum wage, reducing minimum working conditions and restricting pension plans.

As host and chairman of the G-7 Summit in Halifax, does the Prime Minister share the views of the chairman of the International Chamber of Commerce, Arthur Dunkel?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Dunkel is one of the members of the delegation, not the chairman. I find his recipe is a little strong for my taste. I think that there is a way to get public finances under control, in Canada for example, without cutting social programs excessively. This is, by the way, the position which the Minister of Finance took in the budget tabled in February.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister make the commitment that, at the G-7 Summit, amidst the recommendations made by the International Chamber of Commerce and the wind of conservatism blowing on this Parliament, he will not defend conservative economic policies even farther right than his first two budgets,

in which he unabashedly hacked at the social security net of Quebecers and Canadians?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, a few days earlier, I had had the privilege to meet with some of the leaders of the trade union movements in G-7 countries. Our meeting lasted several hours and, obviously, their positions differed from that of the International Chamber of Commerce. Like the good Liberal that I am, I found myself squarely in the middle, between these two positions.

Minister Of Canadian Heritage

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has done it again. Last year he attended a select $2,000 a plate fundraising dinner in his honour to help pay off 1993 campaign debts.

The dinner was held at the Montreal home of Richard Gervais, a Liberal bagman who has received at least $110,000 in contracts from the minister's office since the gathering. It was attended by individuals who have direct business dealings or regulatory dealings with the heritage department. It is not the dinner that concerns us but the conflict of interest which it represents.

My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Does he recognize that by putting himself in such a conflict of interest situation he undermines the integrity of his department and the government?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I did participate in a number of fundraising events, including the one that our colleague is talking about. However, he is making a lot of allegations.

There is nothing secret about anything that I have done and about the contributions I have made to special fundraising events.

In addition, I am informed that all the procedures concerning both the Liberal Party procedures and the Election Canada procedures were followed with a great deal of conscientiousness.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about secrecy but conflict of interest. This is just the latest in a long series of ministerial missteps. This minister has intervened with the CRTC on behalf of a constituent. He helped re-jig the government's satellite to home policy to benefit the Liberal connected Power Corp. He lunched with Edgar Bronfman Jr. on the eve of Seagram's takeover of MCA.

This minister has violated the spirit and the letter of the conflict of interest code on a number of occasions and has put the integrity of the government in question.

Therefore I ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage, will he now do what he should have done months ago and resign?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I have respected every directive of the Liberal Party and Elections Canada. With respect to contracts, I am also informed all treasury board guidelines were adhered to when letting out contracts.

When one respects the rules I expect this would be recognized as the proper behaviour.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the actions of the minister of heritage are part of a disturbing pattern. The justice minister places the principle of merit on the shelf to hire the minister of revenue's friends in Victoria. The minister of public works has diverted over $26 million of highway funding to feather his political nest in Cape Breton.

Despite the government's promise to restore integrity to government, its actions prove it is no different than the Tories it replaced.

Will the Prime Minister live up to his red book promises on integrity and ask for the resignation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister said earlier, all the regulations have been followed. All the contributions have been made public. We have the list of all contributions that have been made to the Liberal Party, to the Conservative Party, to the Reform Party. Some of the contributors to this function had contributed in 1993 to the Reform Party.

Ethics

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the matter of the fundraising dinners organized by the firm of the lobbyist Mr. Gervais, we discover that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has just contravened a directive from the Prime Minister aimed at avoiding any possible conflict of interest. This directive was given as the reason the Minister of International Trade declined to attend a fundraising dinner in Toronto last year.

My question is for the Prime Minister. How can the Prime Minister allow the Minister of Canadian Heritage to yet again contravene one of his directives on government ethics?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has contravened none of our rules or directives. He did not use any list from his department. The people he met were people who had contributed voluntarily to the Liberal Party. This is the way it works in all parties. Everything we do in the Liberal Party is public knowledge. Receipts are issued, people can check.

This is very different from what happened in the 1993 elections, when members of the Bloc Quebecois refused to provide, they were not obliged to do so, but they refused to provide the list of contributions they received in the 1993 elections, and the law did not require them to. When the press asked them to disclose their contributions, they decided not to. They were not obliged to do so at the time. Only this year they will be obliged to do so.

In the matter we are discussing, however, the contributions are public and the receipts are public. Everything is public. The minister did only what every member does and what every minister does: during party fundraising campaigns they make themselves available so we may do our democratic duty, which is to have enough funds that the public knows about available for an election.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Prime Minister, we do not need a lesson from him or his party on funding political parties.

[An hon. member]

Right on. We know why he is rich.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

So, given that the Prime Minister seems to have stretch ethics, would he tell me how he can give different ministers different directives-telling one not to attend an event in Toronto and exonerating the other who attended an event in Laval-Ouest?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the legislation on transparency was tabled in this Parliament by the former Liberal government, of which I was a member. It is a law.

Although the law did not oblige them to, if the Bloc Quebecois has nothing to hide, why did it refuse, after the 1993 elections, to disclose the contributions it had received?

In our case, all contributions we received we made public. We were required to do so and we were happy to do so, because we comply with the law that the Liberal Party adopted in this House.

Minister Of Canadian Heritage

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Francis Fox, the chairman of Rogers, attended the minister's fundraising dinner. His law firm received heritage contracts worth $150,000. Serge Joyal attended the dinner. He received a heritage contract worth $45,000. Phyllis Lambert of the Museum of Architecture contributed $2,000. The museum received $300,000 in heritage grants. Andre Chagnon from Videotron was invited. Videotron has received heritage funds. This has the makings of a Stevie Cameron sequel.

In 1987 the Liberals demanded and got the resignation of Roch LaSalle in a similar situation. Will the Prime Minister now do the right thing and ask for the resignation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have said that everything has been done according to the rules and regulations of the government and the laws of Parliament.

I am involved regularly. I was in the city of Calgary this year and it was the biggest fundraiser we ever had in Calgary. I was in Edmonton and it was the biggest fundraiser we ever had in Edmonton. We do that all the time. It is the democratic way to raise money. We had a great dinner in the riding of the Deputy Prime Minister not long ago. It is all public. The press is invited. Everybody is there and can take notes. We do that.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage is like other ministers. When he is invited to a fundraiser he attends. It is absolutely normal to do that because the contributions are public. Nothing is hidden. It is according to the law, according to the regulations and according to the directives I gave to the ministers.