Debates of Nov. 26th, 1996

Criminal Code

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the record will have to show for the first time, as my hon. friends know, I was in error. The fact is I did receive a letter from the minister in Quebec. He made that request. I have been reminded that legislation has been passed and a request has been made to change the Criminal Code.

I have also learned that consultations with the cruise ship industry have begun. Shortly we will be consulting with the provinces and territories and other interested parties. In view of the hon. member's interest in this subject I will see to it that he is kept abreast of those consultations.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister must probably remember that his colleague in industry wrote him in 1994 recommending an amendment to the Criminal Code to permit the opening of casinos.

I am sure he remembers now. There was a letter to this effect, and we have a copy.

Given that a number of jobs are at stake in the greater Quebec City region and that there is a consensus, when will the minister act?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, there is much interest in this subject not only from the minister of the Government of Quebec but also members of my caucus have raised it with me from time to time in connection with cruise ships on other waterways in Canada.

It is for that reason discussions have been initiated with the cruise ship industry. It is our intention to consult with provincial governments in various parts of the country where this issue arises. We will look at all four corners of the issue and determine whether it is in the public interest to bring forward changes to the Criminal Code.

Infrastructure Program

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure program was supposed to pave roads, build bridges and improve sewer systems. Instead $700 million was spent on cultural and recreational facilities. Taxpayers built ski resorts and golf courses while potholes expanded, bridges crumbled and sewers leaked.

The Liberals campaigned on the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs for all Canadians. At first they said 100,000 new jobs, then they said 100,000 new temporary jobs and then they said just 100,000 temporary jobs most of which we already have.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Since unemployment is back to 10 per cent and the infrastructure program has achieved so little, will the minister guarantee that there will be no infrastructure sequel, a program that has ended up costing so much for so little?

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

Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure project has met with a series of successes. The auditor general mentioned some of them in his report.

When we are spending $6 billion on thousands and thousands of projects, it is inevitable that some projects will have been badly chosen and some of the management may have been wrong. Compared to the private sector, I am sure that the government did well. That will be seen if one asks any municipality in the country.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we know the golf course did well but we cannot all get on to the same golf course. That is the problem. All Canadians need to benefit from government programs. A tax cut would have been a much better long term solution. A tax cut would have put money in the hands of every Canadian rather than in the hands of a few golfers and a few skiers. We need a fresh start.

If the President of the Treasury Board wants real jobs, well-producing, tax paying and family enhancing jobs, which are what Canadians also want, will he admit that a tax cut would have been far better than any infrastructure program, past, present or future?

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

No, Mr. Speaker. The reason is that all these infrastructure projects were there to create construction jobs at a time when the rate of unemployment in that field was close to 20 per cent.

I also have a list which indicates that in the riding of St. Albert, which happens to be the riding of the member, 41 projects have been implemented, over $20 million has been spent and 350 jobs have been created. Will the hon. member now tell me that it was not worth our while to create these jobs in his riding?

Immigration

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the coalition for the respect of human rights condemned abuse by Immigration officers of Algerian nationals seeking refugee status, including excessively long detentions, intimidation, harassment and other arbitrary practices. The Bloc Quebecois has already sharply criticized these actions.

When will the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration put an end to the kind of practices and abuse unworthy of a democratic country that are committed by her officers when dealing with Algerian nationals seeking asylum?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed the coalition held a press conference yesterday, which was attended by the hon. member for Bourassa. I read the summaries in the papers, but unfortunately, the coalition did not advise the minister, and has yet to advise the minister directly of these very serious allegations about the behaviour of certain immigration officers.

I would urge everyone, including the hon. member for Bourassa who joined this group, to communicate to the minister any details of the very serious allegations being made against the staff of the Department of Immigration.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has on several occasions advised the minister of this behaviour.

The president of the world antifascist league, who lives in her riding, called before the conference to let her staff know they were going to have this press conference.

It is pretty obvious that in Algeria we are seeing what to all intents and purposes is a civil war. That being said, will the minister respond positively to repeated requests from the Bloc Quebecois to suspend the deportation of Algerian nationals?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, after this press conference, I asked department officials to meet the coalition in order to obtain further details of their very serious allegations. If these allegations are founded, we will act accordingly.

As for sending people back to Algeria, each case is carefully examined before a decision is made.

Oc Transpo

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

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

Despite efforts by the department or department officials in recent days, a strike has been unavoidable. The public transit strike in Ottawa-Carleton has been raging for two days now.

I would like to know what avenues are open to the government and which of these avenues the government intends to follow to promote a settlement of this dispute and a resumption of services to the community.

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

Mr. Speaker, mediation sessions resumed last night and continued through the night and into today as well.

The best collective agreement is a negotiated one. I encourage the parties to use the services of the mediator they asked me to appoint and whom I appointed immediately last week. I hope that negotiations will continue and that the dispute will be resolved as soon as possible.

Taxation

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, so much for surprising anybody.

Repeatedly the Minister of Finance has stood in this place and said that he has not increased personal income taxes but that is not what the accountants at Peat Marwick are saying. The accountants at Peat Marwick are saying that since 1988, people with an income of $35,000 have had a personal income tax hike of $735.

Will the minister admit that Canadians have suffered a personal income tax hike each and every year that the government has been in power due to the government's decision to continue the deindexation of income tax?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I know it has been so wonderful having us in office that it seems like we have been here a lot longer but we have only been in office since 1993. In fact, the inflation creep to which the hon. member refers was put in place by the previous government in 1985.

If we look at the increase in revenues anticipated between 1993-94 when we took office and 1997-98 of some $23 billion, $17 billion of that is due to increased economic activity. Over $2.2 billion is due to the closing of loopholes, the vast majority of which the hon. member and his party would like to see stay in place, but we closed them.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we get after this tax creep. Enough of the weasel words-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, this House is starting to get a little bit creepy. I would ask the hon. member to please put his question.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Unlike the finance minister, Reform recognizes the unfairness of this inflation tax. That is why we have decided to increase the basic personal exemption to $7,900. It would make up for this back door tax hike.

Will the finance minister admit in the face of all the evidence that the government has indeed raised taxes every year since it has been in power? Will he continue to push for the deindexation of income tax, a decision that will cost taxpayers hundreds of dollars a year in new taxes?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the hon. member go back and look at what Reformers suggested. The main focus of their tax reduction was the elimination of the higher income surtax. It had nothing to do with helping people at the lower end of the income scale.

What Reformers are really talking about is a massive tax increase to be imposed by the provinces. They would eliminate equalization payments in Saskatchewan and in Nova Scotia. They would increase health care costs by cutting three and a half to four billion dollars out of the Canada health and social transfer. What they would really do is bring in a short term tax decrease now which would impose a massive tax increase on the next generation, and that is simply immoral.

Krever Commission

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice seems to have his memory back today, but the same can certainly not be said of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Yesterday, the Minister of Justice told us that there was a way the Krever commission could have access to the documents it is requesting for the 1980-84 period. What the Minister of Justice told us yesterday is that the Privy Council, on the one hand, was not bound by section 39 to prevent the release of the documents in question and that, on the other hand, it had to obtain the consent of then Prime Ministers Pierre Trudeau and John Turner.

I therefore ask the Minister of Justice, who seems to know about these matters, if he stands by his statement and if indeed the Krever commission could gain access to these documents, should the government take the action he suggested yesterday by not applying section 39 and asking Pierre Elliott Trudeau and John Turner for their consent.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we are both right. The section in the evidence act quite clearly provides that documents including cabinet documents are subject to privilege. They are secret. The custodian of those documents is the Clerk of the Privy Council.

The only way those documents can be released, and this has happened on rare occasions in the past, is with the agreement of the former prime ministers and the current government. The former prime ministers are former Prime Minister Mulroney and former Prime Minister Trudeau. The procedure requires the consent of those former prime ministers before any disclosure can be made. That process is in the hands of the Clerk of the Privy Council.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not a memory problem. He just said so. Therefore, the Deputy Prime Minister must have heard what the Minister of Justice said.

Is it the government's intention to ask for the consent of former Prime Ministers Brian Mulroney, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and John Turner to release these documents, so that the Krever commission can proceed with its work and bring justice to the victims who received tainted blood? Will the government stand up and ask the former Prime Ministers to do the same?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, what I said, and the Minister of Justice said the same thing, is that there is a section in the Evidence Act, section 39, that prevents this government from disclosing confidences entrusted with previous governments.

That said, the Prime Minister did state in this House last week that he would do everything he could to shed light on this whole issue. It is clear that the only time anything like this happened was after criminal charges were brought against a minister of the crown.

The matter is already in the hands of Privy Council Clerk Jocelyne Bourgon. She is looking into the possibility of following this procedure in the absence of criminal charges.

Candu Reactors

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

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

The minister wants Canadians to believe he stands for protecting the environment but Canadians are rather concerned with the sale of the Candu reactors to China because no environmental assessment has been done. It even looks like the government is going to get sued on this point.

Can the minister explain why a project of this nature that is funded by the government and is carried out by federal authority does not need a federal environmental assessment?