Debates of Sept. 22nd, 1995

Patronage Appointments

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal members while in opposition complained day after day about patronage appointments of the previous government. Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that times have not changed. The justice minister has continued the tradition by appointing to the Court of Queen's Bench 11 party hacks, bagmen and party supporters to have a turn feeding snout deep at the taxpayers' expense.

The Liberals promised in their infamous red book to end patronage. Canadians should know the only symbol their colour red stands for is the continuing debt and the colour of baloney. The Liberal justice system of social engineering and blaming society for the actions of criminals will continue with these appointments. The Liberal attitude of finding everyone wrong but special interests crying discrimination will continue because of these appointments.

Let the Liberals feed their faithful while they can. The trough will be sealed after the next election.

Ottawa Lynx Baseball Team

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on September 13 the Ottawa Lynx Triple A baseball team won the Governor's Cup of the international league. Thanks to their great team effort the Lynx beat the Norfolk Tides four to nothing, thus winning the best of five series three games to one. Norfolk with the

best record during the regular season was the favourite team coming into post-season play; however, the Montreal Expos farm team peaked at the right time and took the championship.

Since its creation the prospects for the Lynx have been rather encouraging. In the first year the team set a new Attendance record for the league.

The September 13 game which brought the championship to Canada stretched over four hours and twenty-seven minutes, including two rain delays, yet the 9,000 plus fans gathered at the Ottawa stadium never lost faith in their team.

On behalf of all the baseball fans in Ottawa-Vanier and in Ottawa-Carleton, I offer my most sincere congratulations to the Ottawa Lynx, to their manager, their president and owner, Mr. Howard Darwin and Jim Durrell, the former mayor of Ottawa.

Emergency Services Personnel

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the women and men who work in the police, fire, water rescue and ambulance services in Bruce-Grey. On September 24 the Reverend Christopher Pratt will conduct a special service at St. George's Anglican Church in Owen Sound honouring those hard working, well trained and dedicated people.

I am sure hon. members of the House share the admiration and respect I feel toward the people in Bruce-Grey whose jobs often take them into high risk situations.

I join the congregation, the members and the people of Bruce-Grey in giving a hearty thank you to those courageous individuals for their contribution toward safer communities.

Quebec Sovereignty

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the yes side laid out the foundations for the sovereign country Quebecers are being called upon to build for themselves. Echoing the many demands expressed during the commissions on the future of Quebec, the aim of the sovereignty team plan is to breathe a new dynamism into Quebec society once it possesses all of the powers vested in a sovereign people.

"Our Hearts in Our Work" is a second quiet revolution. Because a sovereign Quebec will be able to use all of the means available to sovereign states, it will find original solutions to the numerous problems facing us.

Choosing the no side means choosing immobility. We are sure that Quebecers will say no to immobility and yes to change.

Health Care

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the ministers of health met in Victoria this week to supposedly save medicare but instead they chose to sling insults at each other. All the while Canada's health care system continued its decline with increasing waiting lists, rationing of essential health care services and the massive exodus of expensive and highly trained professional staff.

We all care about medicare and want to see it continue. However an aging population, expensive technologies and an economic crisis have all combined to make medicare as we know it unsustainable. We must look at other new ways to preserve the intent of medicare which will ensure that all Canadians regardless of their income have essential health care services covered in a timely fashion.

The public does not accept the flawed logic of this government which prevents it from gaining access to medical services of their choice. All Canadians must be free to have medicare and a choice to ensure that the health care needs of all Canadians is met.

Payne Webner Study

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec separatists did not take long to react to a study published yesterday on the credit rating of an independent Quebec. The study, which is on the whole very positive for those who are promoting independence for Quebec, remains conspicuously silent on several important aspects of the question, as pointed out by Michel Van de Walle in his business column in the Journal de Montréal .

Another issue our separatist friends have tried to dodge arises from the confusion around the author of the report. The firm of Payne Webner, whose name was associated with the report, said in a press release last Wednesday that it neither sponsored it nor endorses its conclusions.

What, more accurately, should be referred to as the Albert Gordon study fails to clarify satisfactorily a question that is extremely complex. We can imagine that after a very difficult week like this one, Quebec separatists needed a new set of rose-coloured glasses.

Action Démocratique Du Québec

[Réginald Bélair, Liberal, Cochrane—Superior, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Action démocratique du Québec must be starting to wonder what he is doing in Quebec's separatist coalition. In today's Le Soleil published in Quebec City, we read that half the executive of Mario Dumont's riding association intend to vote No in the next referendum.

Members of the association are deeply divided on the policies of their party, and some, including Rémi Dumont, and I quote, "are disappointed in the ADQ's decision to vote for sovereignty". Rémi Dumont added that he would work for the No side.

This development, which is astonishing to say the least, should remind the ADQ's young leader that the Quebecers who supported him in the last election may want more powers for Quebec, but they want those powers within a united Canada.

Privatization Of Pearson Airport

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, on two occasions-December 8, 1994 and March 27, 1995-in response to questions by the official opposition, the Prime Minister stated in this House that he never met promoter Jack Matthews in order to discuss the privatization of the Pearson airport and has denied soliciting a contribution of $25,000 to his campaign for the leadership of the Liberal Party.

Testifying last night in the Senate investigation of the Pearson scandal, Mr. Matthews stated under oath that he indeed met the Prime Minister in late 1989 or in early 1990, that discussions did indeed concern the privatization of Pearson airport and that the future leader of the Liberal Party asked him for a $25,000 campaign contribution.

My question is for the Prime Minister. In the face of this sworn testimony, will the Prime Minister continue in his denial or does he intend to change his version of the facts?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I continue in my denial. Particularly because the meeting was held on April 14, 1989 in the company of a lawyer, who testified under oath and kept notes in his files and because we discussed with Mr. Matthews the possibility of building a head office for Transport Canada on property in Ottawa.

There was absolutely no discussion of Pearson airport and, what is more, I have never solicited funds from anyone during my political career. People were solicited by my supporters. He has got it mixed up again; he has the date wrong and everything. Mr. LaBarge has testified that he had no interest in it and that he is a lawyer. He testified very clearly confirming my version that we discussed the Transport Canada building and nothing else and that, at that point in time-April 1989-the then leader of the Liberal Party was still in office and had not yet resigned. I therefore have nothing to add to what I have said in this House.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, in March 1994, as he did today, the Prime Minister relied on corroboration from his former colleague, lawyer Paul LaBarge, who also denied what Mr. Matthews said. Mr. LaBarge testified under oath yesterday as well before the Senate committee maintaining his denial.

However, this morning's Globe and Mail reported obtaining a copy of the tape of last January's telephone call in which Mr. LaBarge contradicted his testimony of yesterday and confirmed Mr. Matthews statements. I quote the following passage from this morning's Globe and Mail :

"Mr. LaBarge confirms that the meeting took place just before Mr. Chrétien launched his bid for the Liberal leadership and that campaign contributions were discussed".

My question is for the Prime Minister. Given this recording in which Mr. LaBarge himself confirms Mr. Matthew's sworn testimony, will the Prime Minister, who has now been twice contradicted, acknowledge that his credibility is seriously in doubt?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I met with Mr. Matthews in the circumstances I described to this House in April 1989. We discussed the Transport Canada building, which, at that time, was the subject of various proposals the government wanted. I was a lawyer. I gave my opinion on whether they were following the right procedure and on the chances of successfully obtaining the contract. It was in April 1989, as has been confirmed by Mr. LaBarge, who had it in his notes. And about the telephone call that was recorded without Mr. LaBarge's knowledge, I really do not know. All I know is that the dates are confirmed in the file in the office of the firm of lawyers I belonged to.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, apart from the fact that Mr. Matthews was under oath and runs the risk of facing very serious consequences for perjury, there is the fact that the Prime Minister can no longer use Mr. LaBarge's testimony as his support, because Mr. LaBarge contradicted him-

self in the tape the Globe and Mail obtained, as it reported this morning, and this is very serious, Mr. Speaker.

So, if the Prime Minister is so sure of the truth of his words, why does he not go and repeat them under oath before the Senate committee of inquiry?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am the Prime Minister of Canada at the moment. I repeat that I was not a member of Parliament at the time, I was a lawyer, and we discussed the proposal for the Department of Transport building.

There was no question of an election campaign at that point, and all those who know me know very well that I have never solicited funds on my own behalf for my election campaigns and that the facts are very clear in this regard. I give my word that I never discussed the Toronto airport with this man, who is having considerable difficulty himself remembering the dates and everything. I am not going to take the time to analyze all the many contradictions in his testimony.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course the Prime Minister's opinion commands respect. However, in this case it has been formally contradicted by a Canadian citizen speaking under oath and by a taped conservation.

In the circumstances, would the Prime Minister not consider it would be most advisable for him to agree to testify under oath in order to clear up this matter? Would the Prime Minister agree with the importance of such a step?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when a minister rises in the House and gives his word, that is generally good enough for hon. members.

Especially since according to one of his claims, he received a call from someone who is now one of my collaborators, Mr. Goldenberg, who allegedly also asked him for a contribution. Mr. Goldenberg has asked him, through his lawyers, to withdraw what he said. He never met Mr. Matthews and never spoke to him on the telephone.

Mr. Matthews will have to face charges before the courts, since Mr. Goldenberg has instructed his lawyers to start legal proceedings against Mr. Matthews if he does not withdraw his statement.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know it is customary, and indeed we do respect the word of a member in this House. However, the Prime Minister is no doubt aware that the parliamentary immunity, the legal immunity a member enjoys when he speaks in this House implies that when a citizen testifies under oath or a member agrees to testify under oath outside this House, the impact is far greater, because there are major legal consequences.

In the circumstances, why should the Prime Minister, who knows the value of a sworn statement, leave any doubts as to his version of the facts and his integrity, considering he was formally contradicted by an individual who was speaking under oath and may face certain consequences? What this individual said is confirmed by a tape recording.

Why should the Prime Minister be willing to leave these doubts in people's minds, when he has the convenient option of appearing before a Senate committee, being sworn like an ordinary citizen and repeating his statement?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am going by the precedents in this House for testimony by prime ministers. If you want to bring a Bible here, I will swear on the Bible in front of the entire country. Bring the Bible. I will swear on the Bible. I have no objection.

Mr. Speaker, do you have a Bible? I will swear on the Bible right now. If the hon. member will not respect a parliamentary tradition that says that when a member rises in this House, his word is as good as his oath, bring me a Bible and I will swear on the Bible, in English and in French.

Pearson Airport

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

Mr. Speaker, the odour surrounding the cancellation of the Pearson airport contract continues to get worse. The government is now planning to use the taxpayers' money to buy its way out of a mess it created. It claims it will be an arm's length purchase by the greater Toronto airport authority, but what private sector lender provides 175 per cent financing?

The Prime Minister continuously slams the actions of the former Tory government but continues to practise the same old style politics that blurs any distinction between the lines of the two old parties of the past.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he admit that this questionable deal is nothing more than an effort to buy his way out of an embarrassing problem and with taxpayers' money?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows from his experience with the transport committee how important the policy of local airport authority and privatization of local airports is to the government. He knows that many communities other than Toronto are also engaged in a process of negotiation with the federal government to follow on the example of other cities that have taken local control of their own airports. This is a policy that enables local communities not only to improve their own airports but to take responsibility for ensuring that they use them as economic development tools. That is something that will benefit the travellers, the businesses of the

Toronto area, as it will, I hope, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Halifax, and the other airport cities that are engaged in these negotiations.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has claimed in the past that failure to pass Bill C-22 has inhibited its ability to resolve the problem. The truth is it has no plan.

The current Liberal course of action is costing 4,700 jobs, $72 million in tax revenues, leaves Pearson with a potential passenger shortfall of two million passengers a year, and has caused Air Canada to look at a $525 million expenditure, which it can ill afford, to prop up its operation in terminal two. The government still has not provided any kind of plan.

Will the government not agree this is nothing more than an attempt to get out of a mess that is ever worsening, particularly in light of the Prime Minister's former law partner softening his refutal of the accusations that have been made?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, there is a mess here, and it started 10 days before the last election.

I can recall very clearly how explicit it was during the election campaign that a government days before an election did not have the moral authority or parliamentary authority to commit the Government of Canada to a transaction of the magnitude and importance of this one. This was not in any doubt whatsoever.

The fact that the government of the day went ahead and signed this transaction is the exact and only cause of the mess that surrounds Pearson airport today.

If the hon. member would tell his friends in the Senate to get on with completing Bill C-22, we could get on with the work at Pearson airport.

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

Mr. Speaker, two years have gone by since the Liberals formed the government. There is no injunction against the government by the Pearson consortium to stop any plan of action by the Liberals. They simply do not have one.

If the government is planning to use $800 million to compensate Claridge's partners, why is it paying this money only to the Bronfman controlled company and expecting them to bail the government out of its Pearson mess? Obviously the cheaper they do it the more money for them.

Will the Prime Minister admit the obvious? He is playing the same old game of Liberal patronage that he accuses the Tories of playing.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I think the best advice I can give the hon. member is to heed the comments of the Conservative chairman of the committee that is examining Bill C-22, who said yesterday, and I quote: "You can carry this as far as you want, but it has got nothing to do with this committee. If you think I am trying to protect the Prime Minister's reputation, my credentials as a Conservative are one hell of a lot stronger and of a longer term than any other member here". The Conservative chairman of the committee says that the Prime Minister's reputation is not the issue here. We know the issue here is getting on with the work at Pearson airport.

Why is it that the Reform Party continues to support a transaction that was entered into by a Conservative government lacking the responsibility and authority to do it? I do not understand that. Maybe he can explain it one day.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

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

The Prime Minister, just now, tried to hide behind parliamentary tradition. However, no parliamentary tradition places anyone in this House above the law.

The Prime Minister has called for a Bible; there are Bibles in the Senate. Let him go to the Senate and borrow the very Bible Mr. Matthews used when he swore his oath. What is he waiting for to go to the Senate, like any other Canadian, to swear an oath and answer questions?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee himself told me this had nothing to do with the issue. The chairman, a Conservative senator, told us that they do not want to ask the Prime Minister to appear, and will not do so.

No one has asked me to appear there. I stand here in this House to say clearly what I know. If the hon. member has any courage, let him accuse me specifically of lying to this House, and let his seat in this House hang in the balance as a consequence.