Debates of Oct. 30th, 1996

Ethics

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that the Minister of Finance can do no better than to spew a bunch of misinformation about the Reform plan. That is really annoying. But my question is for the Prime Minister.

Canadians are begging this Prime Minister to keep his promise on ethics. On Monday the President of the Treasury Board said: "Government travel cards should be used only for official government business". However, the minister of youth knowingly signed expense forms claiming personal expenses as legitimate government business.

Why does the Prime Minister not discipline this minister for her misuse of public funds and her misrepresentation of the facts?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board replied very well yesterday to this problem.

There was a minor error made by the minister. We checked with the ethics counsellor and every cent has been reimbursed to the government. I have looked into the matter and I am sure that the same mistake will not be repeated.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about that minor error. This statement came from the credit card company directly to that minister's office. That minister did not deduct those personal expenses and submit only the ones that were legitimate. That minister submitted the whole bill and signed on the bottom "this is legitimate government business". If that is not a breach of ethics, I do not know what is.

I am asking the Prime Minister if he will fire that minister for this obvious and blatant breach of public trust.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, in these cases, the card that we use as government travel card is the Diners Club enRoute card on which no interest has to be paid.

The normal procedure is for a member of Parliament to pay directly the amount with his or her cheque and then to send it to the department which then checks the expenditures. The process the member is talking about could not have taken place. I am assured that the member has paid all the payments that were demanded of her and that all her personal expenditures have been reimbursed.

Family Trusts

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Liberal majority on the public accounts committee tabled in Parliament another highly partisan report on the family trust scandal. The Liberals deliberately concealed serious violations by the officials-

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, the words "deliberately concealed" are unacceptable, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the word "deliberately".

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "deliberately".

The Liberals concealed serious violations by the officials involved, including those working for the deputy minister of revenue, Pierre Gravelle.

With all he has done with regard to family trusts, does the Minister of Finance admit that his government has done everything possible to bury this scandal, going as far as muzzling its own members and forcing them to submit reports that conceal the truth from Canadian taxpayers?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject all the accusations that are part of this question. In fact, this file is an example of how a good government operates.

Let us review the facts. In 1991 there was a decision made by the former Conservative government on taxpayer migration. In May of this year the auditor general drew to my attention his concerns with some policy and administrative aspects. I acted immediately to direct my officials to improve their administrative process, and the Minister of Finance acted immediately to send the issues of policy to an open committee of this House, the finance committee. Having received its report he has closed that loophole. This is an example of how good government operates.

I am very proud that because of the actions taken by this Liberal government, a decision that was made in 1991 by the Conservatives cannot be made again.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister claim she has done a good job when we heard dozens of inconsistencies, inaccuracies and different versions from the senior officials who testified before the public accounts committee?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, let me make a comment here and quote from the auditor general: "I believe that a fairly thorough response to the concerns that we have raised has been taken. I am pleased by the seriousness with which our concerns have been taken". This is how good government operates.

I would like to ask the hon. member a few questions because he knows that in this country the province of Quebec has a parallel system that collects the income tax for Canadians in that province. He knows that the province of Quebec has that responsibility. He knows that system does not publish its rulings, nor has that system changed to close the loophole that we have done here.

The facts are clear. This government has acted. It is the PQ that has not.

Agriculture

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board.

According to the Treasury Board, agriculture Canada currently collects more than $100 million annually through various cost recovery programs. Farmers are increasingly concerned about the multiple impact cost recovery is having on their ability to survive and prosper.

What economic impact analysis has been and will be done to monitor these impacts and is the minister prepared to redress any serious negative impacts should they result?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, the first principle of course is that those who get the benefits of government services should whenever possible be those who pay for the costs. This is where the user pay policy comes from.

In the case of the various departments, the departments are responsible for deciding in which circumstances, for what products and for what groups of users charges are to be paid. Once this is determined they make impact analysis and if they realize that their user fees have affects that were not foreseen or are negative then they are free to change their policies.

For specific initiatives each minister is responsible for their impact analysis. The Treasury Board then looks at the overall policies and if there is any consequence that appears to be improper it is then changed and we amend the policy accordingly.

Ethics

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question was to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister ducked the question, avoiding his responsibility, as he is the one who places the ministers in their positions and he is the one who answers for the question of ethics.

I have before me the actual statement that the minister for youth submitted to finance for payment. It has nothing to do with Diners Club. It is a personal American Express credit card, as far as we can tell.

My question is for the Prime Minister. This is so clearly a breach. It states: "I certify that the foregoing expenses have been incurred on official business", and it bears the minister's signature. It is blatant and obvious. Surely this government has enough ethic sense to act on this.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, if it is a personal credit card I am not sure I see the problem.

In any case, could I ask the member to send me the papers so I can look at them. I will look at them to see what happened in this case. I think it is quite unfair to make an accusation on the basis of papers that people have not seen. Therefore, if he sends me over the papers I will look at them.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is getting a little bit bad here. Surely the President of the Treasury Board has access to this information. He should not have to ask me for it. He can ask his minister for it-

[The Speaker]

As you know, colleagues, the rules of the House are not to use props. If you are quoting from a document of course you may quote from it, but I would prefer that it not be used as prop. I would ask the hon. member to please put his question.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to state my question. We have a copy of the statement. The copy we have has a bunch of stuff blanked out but the total of $7,900 was submitted. Why was this paid?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated before, when the statement is made the comptroller's division in a department receives the account, looks at it, decides what is government business and then either reimburses or receives payment for whatever is a personal expenditure.

In order to judge what exactly happened in this case I would need the documents that are printed there. Once again, we have been assured by the departmental comptroller's division that all personal expenditures have been repaid.

Canadian Armed Forces

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

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

Two days ago, the President of the Treasury Board came to the rescue of the Minister of National Defence by supporting his decision not to disclose how much General Boyle's generous separation package would be. The minister is hiding behind the Privacy Act. But the act is clear: discretionary benefits are not included in the definition of personal information. For the minister's information, I am referring to subsection 3( l ).

How can the minister stand by what he said when the act, on the one hand, does not recognize discretionary benefits as personal information and, on the other hand, explicitly authorizes the disclosure of any other type of benefit in the public interest? To be more specific, I am referring to subparagraph 8(2)( m )(i).

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has given us his own interpretation of the act. Let me share with you our lawyers' interpretation: "The fees and amounts an individual is entitled to constitute personal information, the disclosure of which is prohibited under the Privacy Act".

While he was indeed a government employee and an employee who served his country well, General Boyle is nevertheless entitled to the same protection against invasion of privacy as any other officer or employee of the government or anyone in the private sector.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

To listen to the minister, Mr. Speaker, even salaries should not be made public.

How can the minister put his head in the sand like that when, only last month, in a Federal Court ruling in the McCreery case on MPs' pensions, opposing the privacy commissioner and the Department of Public Works, Justice Richard concluded that this kind of public interest information could be disclosed? What are they trying to hide behind this separation payment?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right when he says that even salaries would be protected against disclosure, because individual salaries are indeed not disclosed.

If you take a look at the orders in council that are issued, the salary range is provided, not individual salaries, for that very reason, to protect personal information.

Bombardier

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

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

This government continues to break major promises by approving an $87 million interest free loan to Bombardier. In this very House the Minister of Industry said: "We talked about cutting subsidies to business. That is what we stand for".

He also said: "We are not prepared to grant massive assistance to any company". Why, then, did the Minister of Industry cave in to corporate welfare interests rather than keep the government's promise to Canadians?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to explain to the hon. member, as I did to his colleague over the last couple of days, that the assistance that we have provided in the regional jet project is not a handout to business. It is not a handout to a corporation. It is an investment in research and development, fully repayable out of royalties on sales of aircraft.

This hon. member is the member of his party on the industry committee. I think he understands the importance of trying to develop industries within this country that can succeed.

I remind him that the only high technology sector in which Canada at this moment wins a trade surplus is the aerospace industry.

I remind him that every other country in the world with an important aerospace sector is involved in it by state ownership, by defence procurement or by other measures.

I remind him that as we invest in aerospace in Canada, we will be repaid with jobs and growth. If he wants to have his finance critic stand up and talk about jobs, then I suggest to him that he understand what it takes to create jobs.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. I know exactly what creates real jobs. Tax relief creates real jobs.

In the last 15 years the federal government, including this government, has pumped $1.2 billion into Bombardier. Yet when taxpayers want to know how much of this money is paid back, the taxpayers are told to take a hike.

If it is an investment, as the minister claims, why does this government refuse to divulge how much money has been paid back by Bombardier to the Canadian taxpayer?