Debates of Nov. 1st, 1996

Ethics

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, the only way the ethics counsellor of Canada can be independent is if he reports to Parliament. That is number one.

Number two, the guidelines for the ethics counsellor to administer must be made public so they have credibility.

My question for the Prime Minister is why are they not made public so that they can stand the test of the public and determine whether cabinet ministers are ethical in their actions?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister treats these guidelines as confidential advice from him to his ministers.

The important thing is that the Prime Minister considers himself ultimately accountable to Parliament and to the Canadian people

for the conduct of his ministers. If we are concerned about parliamentary procedure, then surely what the Prime Minister is doing is totally consistent with the highest standards of parliamentary procedure, namely the accountability of the Prime Minister to Parliament and through Parliament ultimately to the Canadian people.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's answer, can the minister explain, in terms of the ethics guidelines that allow a minister of the crown to make a deposit on a fur coat and go on to charge thousands of dollars of expenses on a government credit card, how that is ethical? It is not based on whether there is reimbursement or not. Could the minister explain that kind of unethical conduct in a cabinet of this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I refer my hon. friend to the findings of the ethics counsellor on this matter. He confirmed his earlier ruling through a further review of the matter.

I also refer my hon. friend to the very complete and forthright statement of the Secretary of State for Youth. I think this provides a complete and satisfactory answer to my hon. friend's question.

The Canadian Armed Forces

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The President of the Treasury Board has decided to turn a blind eye to the benefits granted General Boyle. However, specific sections of the Privacy Act clearly provide that the benefits paid to General Boyle on a discretionary basis must be made public and the public interest requires the minister to mention any other benefit granted.

In 1994, the information commissioner said, regarding a similar case involving the golden handshake paid to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, that the rule was simple: whenever anyone gets a gift paid by taxpayers, the public has the right to know about it. Given that the Bank of Canada had to disclose the benefits paid to its governor, why is the minister still trying to circumvent all the rules and hide this information from the public?

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

Mr. Speaker, we also have lawyers who give us the best possible interpretation of the act. The interpretation is that General Boyle is entitled to the same benefits, the same pension and the same protection of personal information as other officers, public servants and people covered by the act.

In this case, the entitlements and amounts to which a person is eligible are considered to be personal information whose disclosure is prohibited under the Privacy Act.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, back in 1994, no government minister talked about a gift. It is the information commissioner who told us that and we agree: it was a gift to the governor. Unless I am mistaken, the government, regardless of the act, the precedents, the public opinion and the interest of Canadians, is interested only in hiding at any cost the amount of the golden handshake that taxpayers had to pay, following General Boyle's gaffes.

Does the Minister of Defence realize that, by continuing against all logic to hide this information from the public, just after taking over his new responsibilities, he is perpetuating the lack of transparency displayed by his predecessor and condoning the secrecy that is poisoning the armed forces?

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

Mr. Speaker, the terms and conditions relating to the departure of governor in council appointees are a Treasury Board responsibility, which is why I am answering these questions. Obviously, if the hon. member does not agree with the interpretation given by our legal officers, he can go to the information commissioner.

As for us, we feel that General Boyle faithfully served his country and that he is entitled to the same protection as any other Canadian, under the Privacy Act.

Tobacco Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health advised the Canadian people not to vote for the Liberal Party unless it brought tobacco legislation into the House. He also said that he would bring forth legislation when he is good and ready.

While the minister dithers, 40,000 Canadians die of smoking related illnesses every year.

I ask the government how many more Canadians have to die from smoking related illnesses before it brings legislation into the House?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, needless to say, the Minister of Health is working with due diligence to ensure that a new piece of legislation will be brought forward. As he said yesterday, he will introduce it when it is ready.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us look at an example of due diligence.

Last March the Minister of Health promised legislation forthwith; forthwith twice last June, twice last month. The hon. member who just spoke promised a year and a half ago that legislation would be coming forthwith and that she would do anything to stop Canadian children from smoking.

While the government is dithering about the issue, 250,000 children take up smoking every single year.

I ask the government, for the sake of the children of this country, when is it going to bring tobacco legislation to the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is working actively to complete the legislation, to have it ready for Parliament.

We do have to make sure it is consistent with the rulings of the Supreme Court. I hope the concern expressed by the hon. member, which we share, will be confirmed when the legislation comes forward by the full and active support of the Reform Party.

That will be the test because we intend to bring it forward as soon as we can in light of the challenges we have in having the right kind of legislation.

Labour Relations

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

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

Following an incident that took place in 1995 during a labour dispute involving Ogilvie Mills in Lachine, a strikebreaker was found guilty of assaulting a striking worker and leaving him with a permanently disabled wrist.

So as to avoid other violent incidents during labour disputes covered by the Canada Labour Code, will the minister admit that the federal government should follow the lead of Quebec and of British Columbia and pass antiscab legislation?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, for almost a year now, under my direction and that of my predecessor, consultations have been held throughout the country. I will have the honour, next Monday, of tabling in this House amendments to part I of the Labour Code. I therefore invite the member to examine them Monday.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since it has always been said that this would not be included in the labour code, I have trouble understanding the minister's reply. Are we to understand him to be saying that the use of scabs does not aggravate labour disputes and that antiscab legislation would not help to establish and maintain civilized negotiations?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the Sims committee has made recommendations. There was departmental consultation. The bill will be tabled Monday, and the question of regulations affecting replacement workers will be covered in the bill. I there ask the member to be patient, and he, along with all members and all Canadians, will be able to examine it Monday. And we will have an opportunity to debate in this House how the government plans to resolve this important issue.

Auto Industry

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

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

Automobile airbags were designed to save lives. However, statistics indicate that people are being injured and killed by these same safety devices. Children in particular are at risk.

What action is the minister taking to ensure that airbags save lives, not jeopardize them?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Nepean for the best question of the day so far.

Some six weeks ago, I wrote to the auto industry on the urgent need to improve airbag performance. I am very pleased to report to her and to the House that the auto makers have responded positively and constructively. They announced this morning in Washington that from now on airbags will be depowered.

I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. It allows me to say, Mr. Speaker-you, I know, are a parent of young children-that it is tremendously important to have seat belts done up, the children in the back seat and to make sure that we cut down on this dreadful toll of over 3,300 Canadian lives lost annually in automobile accidents.

Fisheries

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government says that it cares about coastal communities but let us look at the record.

The Liberals have cut back funds to search and rescue, fisheries surveillance and enforcement, TAGS benefits and fish hatcheries in British Columbia.

The Liberals have hurt coastal communities, not helped them. They say that taxpayers cannot afford these services any more, but they say that taxpayers can afford an $87 million corporate handout to Bombardier.

Why is the Prime Minister more concerned with the corporate welfare of multibillion dollar companies than the welfare and safety of our coastal communities?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the undertone and the assumptions behind the question are really not correct.

However, for the hon. member's benefit and for the benefit of the House and the coastal communities, I will tell the hon. member what we have done. We have put together a salmon revitalization plan that has resulted in record returns in the Skeena River, where he is from, and the Fraser River, where it is double what was expected.

The government has signed an unprecedented memorandum of understanding with the British Columbia government, a province that he represents, for the roles and responsibilities in the fisheries and an impact analysis on the very coastal communities that he says this government does not care about.

Not only do we care about the coastal communities, we have made a commitment. I will reiterate that commitment in the House today to ensure that they are looked after.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the fisheries minister for Canada suggests that the Fraser had a record return this year, I wonder what he is smoking.

The legacy of the government is broken promise after broken promise. Outraged fishermen will not forget how the Prime Minister preferred to cut coast guard services from B.C. to the Gaspé to the east coast to pay for million dollar grants to rich corporations. Take from the poor and give to the rich, that is the Liberal way.

If the coastal communities of the Gaspé had given $170,000 to the Liberals in political donations would they have had their coast guard services cut?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that the hon. member is not in trouble with his constituents. He is from Skeena and if he checks the blues he will see that I said it was the Skeena River that had the record run. He said Fraser and I just wanted to make sure the hon. member does not get in trouble with his constituents.

As we speak, a three member team, one from the British Columbia government, one from the federal government and an independent analyst is going around listening to what the coastal communities have to say. They have made an interim report on which we will act.

Consumer Protection

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.

In the report of the Standing Committee on Finance tabled yesterday, the Liberal members recommended establishing a federal consumer protection bureau.

Since according to the White Paper, the government is in favour of reducing overlap and duplication in regulations that apply to the financial services sector in Canada, how does the Acting Prime Minister react to this recommendation from the Liberal committee, which would have the effect of creating further overlap and duplication?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the report was received very favourably by the government. A tremendous jobs was done by the finance committee, as you know, whose members represent all the political parties here in this House.

As far as the consumer is concerned, there is no doubt that we are all very concerned about the fact that, in many cases, the consumer feels he is not being treated fairly by the financial institutions. It is therefore our intention to look at the report and examine it very carefully.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail reports that this bureau would require only about 20 hours' work per week to deal with all of Canada, in other words, half the workload of a single civil servant. How can the federal government justify this additional intrusion in an area which in any case is the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces? Does the government want to give the impression that it protects its citizens, although it is obvious that this bureau will be useless?