Debates of June 9th, 1995

Minister Of Canadian Heritage

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government cannot seem to get its story straight over the heritage minister's contract for dollars dinner.

Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister stated there was no breach of ethics and therefore there was no need for the ethics counsellor to investigate this paid access to the minister. However, today we learn the ethics counsellor is investigating the matter. It appears Mr. Wilson feels there is more to this affair than meets the government's eye.

Is the ethics counsellor conducting an open investigation into the minister of heritage's dinner? Will Mr. Wilson's report be made public?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister informed the House two days ago that he had consulted Mr. Wilson about the question. I spoke to the Prime Minister at approximately 10.45 a.m. and he advised me, as he has stated publicly in the House many times, that if there are questions about the ethics of the government the ultimate arbiter of those questions is not a bureaucrat, it is the Prime Minister of Canada.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess that is a question mark.

The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the heritage minister have suggested all the information on this matter has been made public. However, the heritage minister refuses to provide the House with a list of the people invited and those who contributed to the dinner.

With the latest revelation that Guylaine Saucier donated $1,000 to the minister's debt fund and was appointed chairman of the CBC six months later, we have to wonder who did not get a contract from the minister's private dinner.

When the Prime Minister appointed Guylaine Saucier as chairman of the CBC, did he know she had contributed $1,000 to the heritage minister's debt fund?

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

Mr. Speaker, Guylaine Saucier happens to be the first woman to be president of the Quebec Chamber of Commerce. She has served on several boards including the board of the Bank of Montreal, the board of Bell Canada, the board of Petro-Canada. She has been active in a number of community events including the University of Montreal, the Montreal Symphony Orchestra, the Hôtel-Dieu de Montréal. She was appointed to the Order of Canada in 1989 by a government that was not Liberal.

Madam Saucier has said she has contributed to numerous political parties. She is a federalist and supports the role of federal political parties in Canada.

If the member has a problem with the appointment of Madam Saucier, then let him so state in the House because her credentials speak for themselves.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, her credentials were not questioned in any way. I asked if the Prime Minister was aware that a donation had been made to that fund before the appointment was made. The question was not answered.

Canadians want ethical and honest government. The success of Mike Harris' populous grassroots campaign proves that. Instead of honesty and ethics, the Liberals are giving Canadians the same old Mulroney style government they had from the Progressive Conservatives.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage specifically targeted clients of his department, invited them to a dinner to pay off his campaign debts and then rewarded all of them, every single one, with grants, contracts and chairmanships. This is a direct conflict of interest and it is about time the government recognized this.

What is this government afraid of? Why will it not release the invitation list of those who contributed to the dinner? Why will the Minister of Canadian Heritage not do the honourable thing and resign?

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

Mr. Speaker, I challenge the member to review his first question. Implicit in the question was the

suggestion that somehow Madam Saucier bought her position in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I pointed out, as she has publicly pointed out, she has contributed to several political parties over a great number of years.

Every political party has the responsibility of collecting funds. I refer the member to an article he might have missed: "The Reform Party will soon be knocking on corporate doors in Nova Scotia in search of political donations for its election war chest. Nationally the party says it-has banked $2.4 million to bankroll the next vote where it will be running candidates in 295 ridings. If you have an extra $125 and you would like to break bread with Preston Manning, you are in luck. Reform's chief will be in Halifax-for a fundraising dinner".

Political parties raise money. I am sure the member would agree with me that it would not be reasonable to exclude every Canadian who donates to a political party from ever serving in a capacity with the Government of Canada.

Bosnia

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

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

Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs demonstrated Canada's lack of leadership in the Bosnian crisis by refusing to publicly state Canada's position on the rapid reaction force, while at the same time, behind closed doors, the Minister of National Defence supported the initiative at a NATO meeting.

Now that we know, thanks to the media and the Minister of National Defence, that Canada supports the creation of a rapid reaction force in the former Yugoslavia, and the UN's leadership of it, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the government intends to contribute troops or to contribute logistically to this rapid reaction force?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

As he knows, there are activities under way by other allied countries participating in Bosnia to look at a rapid reaction force.

The Prime Minister stated in the House earlier in the week that we are aware of the plans being made but at that time Canada was not part of that activity. As I stand in the House today I have to say the same thing. Canada is not part of that activity and the decision has not yet been made.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at a time when the United States' reaction to the rapid reaction force is lukewarm, which is seriously hampering the effort of the international community to consolidate the peacekeeping forces in Bosnia, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether she shares the opinion of the British secretary to the Foreign Office that, if the rapid reaction force does not get up and running, the only other option will be to withdraw the peacekeepers from Bosnia?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there are 35 countries involved in the former Yugoslavia. Canada is one of them. He has asked me questions about other countries, but I can only answer the question for Canada. I have answered that question and I can do no more.

Bill C-69

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, almost since this House began sitting early in 1994, the government has been attempting to redo the redistribution of boundaries in the House of Commons. This latest bill, C-69, which has been bouncing back and forth, is coming back to this House. It will increase the size of the House and add $6 million in redistribution costs. We saw last night in Ontario that the people of Canada do not want to spend this kind of money on the House of Commons.

I would ask the government House leader if he would now consider doing the right thing by withdrawing Bill C-69, saving $6 million, and allowing the redistribution to go ahead?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in his question is reflecting adversely and unfairly on the work of members of this House who for the first time under the rules of parliamentary reform actually brought in and drafted a bill. Instead of his unwarranted criticism, he should be recognizing this good work and urging his friends in the Senate to respect the wishes of the elected people of this House and let this bill go through.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how many friends I have in the Senate.

In the Ontario election last night premier-elect Harris defeated the Liberals partly by proposing that there be a 25 per cent reduction to the number of seats in the Ontario legislature. If the government is not willing to at least let the redistribution go

ahead, would it consider combining the redistribution with the modest 10 per cent reduction to the number of seats that the Reform Party has proposed?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the increase in seats that would come into effect, not just in the bill he is talking about but in the redistribution process that was interrupted by it, is provided for in a formula in the Constitution of Canada.

This government does not propose opening a new round of constitutional discussions. I am surprised my hon. friend wants to take up the time of the country with a new round of constitutional discussions. I am sure the people of Ontario and British Columbia would be most displeased and disheartened to learn that he does not want them to have fair representation in the Parliament of Canada.

Bovine Somatotropin

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

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

In response to the Official Opposition's questions in the House regarding the fraudulent use of the growth hormone somatotropin, the Minister of Agriculture announced close to a month ago that he would investigate dairy producers and single out the ones that are guilty of fraud.

Will the minister tell us whether, as part of his inquiry, he requested and obtained the collaboration of producers' associations, Canada Customs officers and Health Canada inspectors, and will he reveal to us the fruit of his research?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that no further information has been drawn to my attention since the issue was first raised a number of days ago in the House.

The issue is obviously one, as he implies in his question, that would involve co-operation among a number of departments, most particularly the two departments he referred to, the Department of Health and the customs department.

If and when there is further pertinent material that is drawn to my attention as a result of the inquiries we are making, I would be most happy to inform him and all other hon. members.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the minister has already had the question in his hands for one month, not just for a couple of days and that we are waiting for the results.

Will the minister tell us whether, as a follow up to his inquiry, he intends to pursue this issue further and to take legal action against those who used somatotropin illegally, given that the hormone had not yet been declared safe by Health Canada?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, at this point I think it would be imprudent and inappropriate to make any references to the possibility of illegal conduct.

Obviously if in the course of these inquiries or any other inquiries that are being made there is evidence that comes to light of activity that would be in violation of the law, the appropriate action would be taken.

Employment Equity

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

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

All the polls and pundits have indicated that a major reason behind Mike Harris' victory last night in Ontario was due to his position on employment equity. He was not messing around; he said he was going to scrap the employment equity plan.

On this side of the House we are very interested to know if the federal government is going to take a lesson from this victory last night. I realize that the Charest-Mulroney gang brought in employment equity, but is this government going to stop now trying to bring in an expanded employment equity plan? Will it withdraw its plans on Bill C-64?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member had better make up his mind. His colleagues were running around saying that the victory was as a result of gun control.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, just to remind you very gently, when we refer to each other in the House, sitting members, we refer to our ridings as opposed to our names.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose there are quite a few Reform policies that got the Mike Harris government elected.

The director of communications for the Prime Minister's office said that the federal Liberals would be helping the Ontario

Liberals in their campaigns. The quote is: "They helped us, we help them. A Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal." I am sure Lyn McLeod is saying to herself this morning, "With friends like this, who needs enemies?"

Since the voters of Ontario totally rejected the Liberal concept of employment equity, will the minister listen to the voters and back down on the government's own employment equity plans, its plans to expand employment equity, or is it going to take a federal election defeat for the Liberals before they listen to the people and understand that employment equity is not wanted?

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

Unlike the Reform Party, we actually believe in employment equity, and unlike the Reform Party, we actually believe in political democracy.

Unlike the Reform Party, we did not put the jackboots to provincial Reformers who wanted to run in the Ontario provincial election. We allow and encourage everybody to become members of the Liberal Party because we are not afraid of a little competition at the provincial level.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.