Debates of June 6th, 1995

Minister Of Canadian Heritage

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us focus on the home of Richard Gervais where the fundraising dinner took place.

Serge Joyal attended the dinner. He said yesterday that the dinner was to have been an opportunity to discuss with the minister his priorities on the future policies he wanted to implement. Serge Joyal is an official of Power Corporation. How can the minister deny that this paid access to the minister directly benefited Power Corporation?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Joyal said his ticket was paid for by Madam Lambert.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

Revenue Canada

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

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

Yesterday, some 1,400 angry taxpayers gathered at Place des Arts to denounce Revenue Canada's decision to make them pay back retroactively, and with interest, investments made in good faith and claimed as a scientific research and experimental development tax credit. Revenue Canada's decision affects 15,000 Quebecers and could bankrupt approximately half of them.

Does the Minister of National Revenue undertake to make a decision before the end of this session, bearing in mind that, while he and his officials are reviewing the case, thousands of taxpayers in Quebec are facing the prospect of bankruptcy?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is true that hundreds of companies were established by promoters interested in investing in scientific research. It is also true that, in many cases, the fact that no research was carried out caused problems in a number of regions in Quebec and in other provinces as well.

At present, there is litigation between investors and promoters. This is a very complicated situation, and I can assure the hon. member that a decision will be made by the end of the session, if at all possible, and hopefully before the end of June in any case.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister recognize that it is totally unacceptable for Revenue Canada to change the rules after a few years and ask Quebec taxpayers to pay back large amounts retroactively, thereby driving thousands of them to the brink of bankruptcy?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada did not change any rules. The rules have been in place for a long time and have remained unchanged. The real question is: How did it come about that the Canadian government put in place a system allowing promoters to do such things?

Since the decision was made in 1989, the question would be better put to the Leader of the Official Opposition, who was a government member at the time.

Minister Of Canadian Heritage

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in my six years as an MP I have seen government patronage and corruption at its very worst. I listened to Liberal howls of outrage and calls for integrity, competence and honour when they were in opposition. Now they are sitting on the other side of the House and of course the tune has changed. This government is showing the same arrogance as its predecessor and it thinks that popularity polls can justify patronage appointments, backroom deals and political payoffs.

My question for the Prime Minister is why the double standard? If Roch LaSalle resigned, why will not his minister?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, everything has been done according to the rules, the legislation and the guidelines which we have initiated.

Fundraising is an occupation of all parties. I have a list of all the contributions the Reform Party has received. I will not read it. It is legitimate. I am not complaining. That party received the money. The list is public. The people who contributed to the Reform Party have contributed to the Liberal Party, to the Conservative Party and sometimes to the Bloc Quebecois. It is normal.

If you have an accusation to make, if you can link a contribution to a contract, make the accusation-

[The Speaker]

I would ask all hon. members to please address the Chair when they are speaking.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking cash or contributions, we are talking contracts which arise out of those fundraisers.

The Liberals in opposition would have demanded the resignation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I watched them and they would have demanded it for sure. Their disgust and outrage would have echoed through these hallowed halls and in the press. The Liberals in government however dismiss the minister's dinner for dollars as harmless and then they send out the spin doctors to minimize the damage. Brian Mulroney must be smiling as he watches this as he may soon be appointed the Liberals' patron saint.

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing, the honourable thing which happened years ago and ask the minister to resign?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member is able to make a precise accusation that someone paid for a contract, I will do what I have to do. I have been around here for a long time. I know that they are chickens. They make broad statements, never being able to pin down any contract relating to contributions. When they do that we will do what is the right thing to do. With respect to innuendoes made by people who cannot make an accusation, I do not spend a lot of time on chickens of that kind.

[Some hon. members]

Cluck, cluck.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

With respect I would remind all hon. members that this is the House of Commons, not a barnyard. I would please ask you to deal with each other with respect.

Helicopter Purchase

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works.

Barely two years after the EH-101 helicopter contract was cancelled, the Minister of National Defence is said to be on the verge of recommending to cabinet the purchase of at least 47 new helicopters, 32 of them equipped for antisubmarine warfare.

How can the minister justify the fact that the government is about to acquire 47 new helicopters at a cost of $2.6 billion, when it is still negotiating the compensation to be paid for cancelling the current contract with Agusta, a firm which is the subject of very serious accusations of corruption and bribery in Europe?

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that cabinet is seized with the subject matter to which he refers. No decisions have been made with regard to that subject matter.

With regard to compensation, no compensation is being paid. I have stated this repeatedly in the House and outside the House. What is being done at the present time is the termination costs which have to be arrived at pursuant to the contract which was duly consummated by the previous administration. That has to be followed and will be followed.

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

Mr. Speaker, since the Deputy Prime Minister refused last Friday to make a commitment to exclude Agusta from any bidding process, can the Minister of Public Works make this commitment until the inquiry into the accusations against Agusta gets to the bottom of this matter? Is the minister ready to make this commitment?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will abide by your wishes but I believe the question is somewhat hypothetical in view of the fact that cabinet has not made any decision with regard to the procurement of the items in question.

With regard to the specific company he raises, it should be noted that there are two separate entities at play here. Cabinet has not made the decision in terms of what it will do. When cabinet makes the decision I am sure the hon. member will be well informed. He will then have an opportunity to ask questions of myself as well as of the Minister of National Defence.

Child Care

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

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

During the 1993 election campaign our government made a commitment to the people of Canada in particular to Canadians with young families to work with the provinces toward expanding existing child care spaces. Furthermore we committed to working with the provinces and the business community to identify appropriate incentives for the creation and funding of child care spaces in the workplace.

Would the minister please tell the House what steps this government is taking to meet this commitment?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a question that is very important to many people across the country.

This government is still very much committed to the child care commitment we made in the red book. We have already committed $72 million for a major child care program with aboriginal first peoples. We are negotiating those and we hope to have that program implemented by this fall.

We are very interested in continuing discussions with the provinces to see how we can arrive at a joint matching agreement for child care spaces according to the commitment we made during the election. We certainly would be interested in responding to any provinces interested in talking to us.

Code Of Ethics

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims there have been no rules broken.

Let us be very specific. I quote from the conflict of interest code: "A public office holder shall take care to avoid being placed or the appearance of being placed under any obligation to any person or organization that might profit from special consideration on the part of the office holder".

The dinner in question today is clearly a breach of this section of the code and the minister deliberately ignored this code. My question is for the Prime Minister. What will he do to hold this minister accountable for this breach?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I explained earlier that this fundraising exercise by every party in the House and every member of Parliament is a normal act of democracy.

If someone is proposing that the government pay all the expenses of all the candidates, I will entertain that possibility, but it is not the way we are functioning here.

We ask the people to contribute, but there is a clear rule that everybody who contributes $100 or more has to be known by the public. This week, every contribution received by every member of this House will become public. The amount of money that every member of Parliament has contributed will be known. It is

the way we operate in Canada. It is the most open system there is.

Ministers and members of Parliament meet with people who want to contribute to the party. That is very open, very public, and there is no conflict of interest because everybody is informed.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the question is not one of secrecy or being public. If I rob a bank in public, does that now mean that I am not guilty?

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

I cannot understand how the Prime Minister can defend and differentiate between normal fundraising and an activity that resulted afterward in specific contracts being let without tender. That is not acceptable.

My question for the Prime Minister is what good is this code of ethics if there is no accountability for it when someone breaks it? It has clearly been broken here.